The appellantherein was arrayed as A-2 in the said special case and convicted under Sections7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentencedto undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- indefault to undergo three months imprisonment for an offence punishable undersection 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted under Sections 7 and13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo one year RigorousImprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo a furtherperiod of three months R.I for the offence, aggrieved by which the appeal hasbeen preferred.It is not in dispute that the copies of documents relied on by theprosecution were furnished to the accused, charges were framed, as perprocedure, under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined andExs.P.1 to 43 and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.On the side of the accused, no onewas examined, but documents Exs.D.1 to D.3 were marked.The trial court foundthat the guilt against the appellant / A2 and the co-accused have been provedbeyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant / A2 and the other accusedunder Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act.It is seen that the case was registered against the appellant andthe co-accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act.According to the appellant he is an innocent person, howeverhe was found guilty, based on certain unforeseen circumstances.It is not indispute that the appeals preferred by A1 and A3 were dismissed for default,though the appeal preferred by the appellant/A2 was also dismissed, subsequentlyon petition, the same was restored to file.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of thisCourt to Ex.P.3, dated 31.12.1998, and submitted that as per the prosecutioncase, P.W.3 had given a complaint to take action against one LaxmananS/o.Mathavan Naicker and 9 others, on the ground that they were causing damageto his crops by cattle and also attempting to attack him.Asper Ex.P.4, the defacto-complainant, Paara Naicker, P.W.3 gave a complaintbefore the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti corruption,Trichy, stating that the Inspector of Police / A1 had asked him to payRs.5,000/- as bribe for taking action against the aforesaid persons and also totake steps to discharge P.W.3 from the aforesaid case, registered against himand for doing favour to the other accused in getting bail.Though P.W.3 was notwilling to pay the bribe he agreed for paying the amount Rs.5,000/- to the co-accused/A1 and informed the same to the respondent.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 further submitted thatthere is no whisper against the appellant/A2 in the written complaint given byP.W.3, that he had demanded any illegal gratification and the defactocomplainant / P.W.3 had raised allegation only against the co-accused / A1.Subsequently, as per the prosecution case, on 25.01.99 at about 17.45 hours theVigilance and Anti Corruption squad came to the police station, as alreadyplanned and P.W.3 entered into the police station as per the trap proposal.Prior to that he had been given fifty hundred Rupee notes by the respondent andwas instructed to hand over the same to the co-accused / A1 and to giveimmediate signal to the Vigilance Squad from the police station.Accordingly,P.W.3 went to the police station and at that time, the Inspector / A1 was alsopresent in his office, then P.W.3 informed him that he had the money Rs.5,000/-,as demanded by him and requested A1 to do the needful, after receiving theamount.However, the co-accused / A1, cleverly informed P.W.3 to hand over themoney to A2, who was the Head Constable sitting in the other room, attending hiswork.Theappellant / A2, after verifying the same with the Inspector / A1 received theamount from P.W.3 and kept it in his shirt pocket.The denominations and thenumber of the currency notes were already noted by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption squad and also applied phenolphthalein powder in the currency notes.P.C, he has stated thathe received the money innocently from P.W.3, as P.W.3 informed him that theInspector had asked him to hand over the money to the Head Constable, theappellant herein, who was sitting in the other room and attending his work.(i) In the trap case, prior to the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant / P.W.3 had given a written complaint to the respondent, wherein hehas specifically stated that the co-accused / A1 had demanded Rs.5,000/- to dosome favour.(ii) As per the trap arrangement, the defacto-complainant directly went tothe police station and informed the Inspector / A1 that he was ready with themoney, as demanded by him and requested him to do the needful in his favour.However, the Inspector / A1 cleverly asked the defacto-complainant to hand overthe money to the appellant, who was the Head constable, sitting in the otherroom.Had it been known to the appellant / A2, he would not have verified withthe co-accused / A1 before receiving the amount, whether he had instructed, soto receive the amount from P.W.3 and there was no other excess amount availablewith the appellant.The amount handed over by the defacto-complainant and theconduct of the appellant / A2, keeping the money in his shirt pocket would showthat he had innocently received the amount, without knowing that the same was anillegal gratification demanded by A1, otherwise, at least, he could not havekept the money in his shirt pocket itself.(iii) As per the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3, after the amountwas handed over to the appellant / A2, while coming out of the room, A3 / writerof the police station, asked further amount from him and the defacto-complainantsaid that he had already parted with a sum of Rs.5,000/-, for which the reply bythe co-accused / A3, according to P.W.3, is that the amount Rs.5,000/- given byhim was only for the Inspector and hence, something must be given to him.The bail bond, if any executed by the appellant shallstand cancelled and the fine amount, if any paid by the appellant shall berefunded to him forthwith.am / tsvnToThe Additional Sessions Judge-cum-The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli.On the side of the prosecution 11 witnesses were examined and 43documents were marked and by the impugned judgment, dated 31.01.2003, the courtbelow found that the appellant / A2 was guilty, accordingly he was convicted andsentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- as stated above with default sentence.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the chargesframed against the appellant/A2 was not proved by the prosecution beyondreasonable doubt.In the presence of witnesses, thecurrency notes were recovered from the appellant / A2, and the numbers wereverified by the squad and found tallied.Then they asked the appellant / A2 todip both his hands in a tumbler that contained sodium carbonate water and afterthe dip, the same became light pinkish in colour.In order to prove the factumof seizure of currency notes from the appellant / A2 and the phenolphthaleinpower test conducted, mahazars were prepared in the presence of witnesses andthe witnesses were examined before the court below, on the side of theprosecution.The recovery of the currency notes from the appellant / A2 has beenproved, as per the findings of the Court below.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that theappellant / A2 is an innocent person, he had nothing to do with the allegedoffence and there was no allegation against the appellant / A2 in the originalcomplaint, Ex.As per the evidence ofP.W.3, he approached the co-accused / A1 and informed that he was ready with themoney Rs.5,000/- as demanded by him and requested him to receive the same and dothe favour in a pending criminal case relating to him.However, the co-accused /A1 cleverly asked P.W.3 to hand over the money to the Head Constable, theappellant / A2, who was sitting in the other room.The appellant / A2, withoutknowing the illegal dealing of the co-accused / A1 with P.W.3, after verifyingwhether any such instruction was given by the Inspector / A1, his superiorofficer, received the money from P.W.3, without any malafide intention and keptit in his shirt pocket itself.According to the learned counsel for theappellant / A2, the appellant has not committed any offence, punishable underthe Prevention of Corruption Act and that there was no criminal intentionestablished, as against the appellant / A2 by the prosecution.It is seen that P.W.1, Deputy Inspector General of Police has accordedsanction to prosecute the co-accused / A1, being an Inspector of Police and hehas also deposed that after considering the materials placed before him, havingsatisfied, on perusal of the materials, accorded the sanction.P.W.3 is the defacto complainant, who wasmade as witness by the respondent for the trap arrangement.As per theprosecution case, only on the complaint given by P.W.3 before the DeputySuperintendent of Police under Ex.P.4, he was asked to be present at the officeof the Deputy Superintendent of Police at 4.45 p.m on 25.01.1999 and P.W.4,Munusamy and one Selvaraj were also shown as independent witnesses for theoccurrence.In the original complaint given by the defacto complainant / P.W.3,admittedly the allegation of demanding bribe was raised only against the co-accused / A1, Inspector of Police and no whisper about the appellant / A2 in thecomplaint.In the referred case, charges were framed under Sections 7 and 13 ofPrevention of Corruption Act, based on the trap materials, wherein the accused,officer and his junior officer working in Commercial Tax Department, haddemanded and accepted bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant, who was a dealerin grocery articles for making way bills.As per the evidence, the accusedofficer directed the money to be paid to his Junior Officer and the evidence ofthe complainant and the trap witnesses established the recovery of money fromthe accused / Junior Officer.It was held that presumption could be raised thatsince accused persons therein had accepted illegal gratification, when there wasno tenable defence, as there was no tax due and on the contrary, complainant wasentitled to refund of the amount already paid.Similarly, as perthe trap arrangement, P.W.3 went to the police station and approached thecomplainant / A1 directly, but to his surprise, the co-accused / A1 asked him tohand over the money to the Head constable, the appellant herein.(iv) It is not the evidence of defacto-complainant / P.W.3 that theaforesaid amount, Rs.5,000/- was for the Inspector / A1 and the appellant / A2,as per the said conversation.Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur.(Special Judge).

Sections cited: Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code