2019 Supreme(Mad) 1408

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
State Represented By Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/Chennai in RC MAI - Appellant
Versus
V. Karunakaran - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2012
Decided On : 22-01-2019

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 ,13(2) r/w13(1) (d),20 - Post of GDS/MC/DP - Being a public servant or otherwise misusing his official position respondent himself obtained for pecuniary advantage - Complainant is that he applied for post of GDS/MC/DP and he attended interview and respondent had conducted interview and got selected in interview - After completion of interview respondent called and demanded and stated only if pays amount he could continue his job peacefully - Further respondent demanded money several times and at last when enquired respondent about his salary he demanded and only after he paid money he would forward his charge report to bill section for preparation of bill - When expressed his inability respondent asked him to pay as advance on next day - As he was not willing to pay any bribe through phone contacted Superintendent of Police CBI ACB Chennai who instructed to contact Trap Laying Officer Inspector of Police and he contacted TLO who instructed to meet him in a Lodge namely Palaniyappa Palace at room and accordingly went there and preferred a complaint against respondent for allegedly demanding money - There TLO introduced him two independent witnesses namely - TLO explained about complaint to independent witnesses and pre trap demonstration was conducted - After coating currencies which was meant for giving to respondent as bribe with phenolphthalein power money was given to - Further had deposed about preparation of entrustment and they noted currency numbers - Along with left lodge and went to office of respondent at - After minutes only respondent came and on seeing respondent asked whether he had brought and asked him to come to terrace and went to terrace where respondent asked how much money he had brought and he replied that he had brought and when he gave same to respondent he asked him to place it inside a carry bag and accordingly had dropped money inside bag - Then he came down to ground floor and showed pre arranged signal to TLO - He immediately came to office of respondent - Identified respondent and came out of office of respondent - Subsequently Trap Laying Officer asked respondent to dip his fingers in solution and colour did not change and carry bag was dipped into solution and colour lightly changed - Thereafter he took money from carry bag and counted and also compared currency numbers with entrustment same were matched and tainted money was recovered from respondent through recovery and observation was also prepared - After that TLO recovered certain documents from office of respondent - Whether he had brought and asked him to come to terrace and went to terrace whether he had brought and he replied yes and he asked to come to terrace - Whether he had brought money and told yes - Whether he had brought money when he said yes he took him to upstairs after sometime both together came down - Held, In view of foregoing discussion this Court finds that trial Court has failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and given credence to unimportant materials - In result present criminal appeal is allowed and judgment made in by Additional Sessions Judge Madurai is hereby set aside - Respondent is directed to appear before this Court for question of sentence - As directed by this Court respondent has appeared before this Court today - Senior Counsel appearing for respondent submitted that occurrence took place in year and order of acquittal was passed in year - Respondent has one married daughter and one unmarried daughter - He is years old now and himself and his wife are sick - Hence prayed for minimum sentence - When respondent was asked about sentence to be imposed on him he has stated that he had not committed any mistake and prayed to show sympathy - Considered submissions made by learned Counsel for respondent and respondent/accused - Considering serious nature of charges levelled against respondent this Court is not inclined to show any leniency and consider mitigating circumstances As this Court has already found respondent guilty and convicted respondent following sentence is imposed respondent is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of as fine in de fault to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for having committed offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine as fine in de fault to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for having committed offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and both sentences shall run concurrently – Ordered Accordingly