Bail SlipThe v. State

Since the Administrative Manager Mr.B.S.Reddy has instructed himnot to give the bribe amount of Rs.300/- to the accused but to prefer acomplaint with Vigilance Department, he (P.W.2)has preferred a complaintEx P4 with CBI ACB,Madras and that on 28.1.1994, at about 2.30p.m., hewent to the guest house at Victoria Nagar and the accused Ganesan alsocame there at about 3.00p.m and changed the instrument into push button https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ type and after installation of the push button type, the accused demandedan amount of Rs.300/- but he has been given the amount to the accused butrequested him to come in the late evening. Accordingly, the accusedinformed him that he will return back to the Victoria guest house between5.30p.m and 6.00p.m., and to keep the amount of Rs.300/- ready and afterthe accused left the guest house, he contacted Mr.B.S.Reddy over phoneinforming him that the accused had installed the instrument and alsodemanded Rs 300/- from him and as per the instruction of Mr.B.S.Reddy, he(P.W.2) asked the accused to come in the evening and he returned.

As perinstruction of Mr.B.S.Reddy, he met the CBI officials at Uppalam guesthouse along with Rs.300/- and lodged Ex P4 complaint where P.W.5, the Inspector of Police Premkumar, another Inspector Aranganathan,D.S.P.Ramasamy and Head Constable Jayamohan were present and immediatelytwo unknown persons arrived at Uppalam guest house and the Inspector of Police introduced them to him as Sankaralingam and Singaravelu of Secretariat and prepared Entrustment mahazar Ex P5 wherein the witnesseshave signed. As mentioned in Ex P5, entrustment Mahazar, a demonstrationwas conducted by the Inspector by taking water in a glass and mixed sodiumcarbonate powder and asked the trap witness Sankaralingam to dip hishands when he dipped so, there was no change in the colour of thesolution. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notesproduced by him(P.W.2) and Sankaralingam was asked to handle the currencynotes and afterwards, he was asked to dip his fingers in the sodiumcarbonate solution.

After he dipped so, the colourless solution turnedpink colour. The Inspector of Police, instructed him(P.W.2) not to touchthe currency notes unless it was demanded by the accused Ganesan. As perthe instruction of the Inspector of Police, Prem Kumar, he and P.W.3Sankaralingam went to Victoria Nagar guest house in TVS 50 moped and trapteam members were followed them in a van. He (P.W.2) and Sankaralingamwere waiting in the hall of the guest house for the arrival of the accusedand other team members hidding themselves in the bed room of the guesthouse , the Inspector of Police Mr.Prem Kumar has also instructed him(P.W.2) to give signal by wiping his face with a kerchief since theaccused had received the bribe amount. The accused came to the guesthouse at about 6.30p.m. and enquired whether the instrument wasfunctioning properly and then demanded Rs.300/- from him(P.W.2).Immediately, he took out the currency notes from his pocket and handedover the same to the accused who after counting the same kept in his shirtpocket.

The currency notes are Rs.100 in denomination numbering three. After the accused had received the tainted amount, he gave signal asinstructed by the Investigating Officer to the trap team who were hiddingin the bed room. The Inspector of Police Mr. Prem Kumar and his trap teamentered into the hall and after introducing him to the accused andinformed the accused that he is under arrest. The recovery mahazar wasprepared under Ex P6, for the seizure of the currency notes bearingNos.8AQ 247699,4GD 424255 and 9LG 762252 viz., M.Os 1 to 3 and the trapwas completed at 7.45p.m. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5b. P.W.3 Sankaralingam is the witness in Ex P5 mahazar. Accordingto him, as per the instruction of the under Secretary of D.P. andA.R.Section, Secretariat, Pondicherry, he went and met the VigilanceOfficer of CBI Department and as per his instructions along with anotherwitness, Thiru R.Singaravelu and along with the Inspector of PoliceMr.Prem Kumar and his team mates went to Uppalam guest house where P.W.2was introduced to him.

The complaint preferred by P.W.2 was also read overto him. The Entrustment Mahazar Ex P5 was prepared in his presence and hewould narrate about the instructions given by Mr.Prem Kumar, the Investigating Officer to P.W.2 and accordingly both he(P.W.3) and P.W.2went to Victoria guest house at about 6.00p.m., , the accused came thereand demanded Rs.300/- from P.W.2 as a bribe for shifting the telephone andalso changing the telephone instrument. P.W.2 handed over the taintedcurrency notes to the accused and after counting the same, kept in hisshirt pocket and P.W.2 gave pre arranged signal to the trap team. Immediately CBI Officials entered into the hall from their hidding placeand Phenolphthalein test was conducted and when the accused was asked todip his right hand in the said solution, it turned into pink in colourwhich was sealed and labelled as"A". The said pink colour bottle solutionis M.O.4 and in another glass sodium carbonate solution was preparedand the accused was asked to dip his left finger into the solution whichalso turned into pink in colour which was labelled as"B".M.O.5 is the saidbottle.

Ex P6 mahazar was prepared for the trap test conducted in thepresence of him(P.W.3) and other witnesses and the accused. His shirtpocket in which the accused had placed ill-gotten money was subjected tothe phenolphthalein testM.O.7 is the shirt of the accused . The numbersof the currency notes recovered from the accused were compared with thenumbers of the currency notes noted in Ex P5 mahazar and found to betallied with each other and the accused was released on bail. Ex P8 is thesearch list prepared by the Inspector of police in his presence.5c. P.W.4 is the then Assistant Manager of Pondicherry telephone. Hespeaks about the application made by P.W.1 for the shifting of histelephone from Anna Nagar guest house to Victoria Nagar guest house. Ex P9is the advice for shifting of the telephone issued by him and after Ex P9work of shifting was entrusted to one Ranganathan, Phone Inspector whohad sent the lineman, the accused herein by entrusting the work forshifting the telephone to Victoria Nagar guest house from Anna Nagarguest house.

After completion of the out door work, Ex P11 jumper slipwas issued under his signature. He would depose that if the subscribercarries out the internal wiring then a sum of Rs.300/- will be given tothe subscriber from out of the shifting fee of Rs.600/-. Under Ex P15, thecustomer in this case has claimed Rs.300/- for the internal work carriedout by them. Ex P16 contains the shift particulars. Ex P17 is the gatepass wherein the accused has also signed . Under Ex P17 he has ordered fora refund of Rs.300/- to the subscriber since the internal work was carriedby them. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5d. P.W.5 is the Inspector of Police who had conducted theinvestigation in this case. He speaks about the complaint preferred byP.W.2 against the accused alleging that he had demanded Rs.300/- towardsbribe for shifting the telephone connection from Anna Nagar guest house to Victoria Nagar guest house at Pondicherry and also about the trapconducted by him on 28.1.1994 at Victoria guest houe and also about thearrest of the accused in the trap.5e. P.W.6 is the successor of P.W.5 who had laid the chargesheetafter completing the investigation under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act against the accused.

The numbers of the notes recovered from the appellant talliedwith the numbers noted in the mahazar. P.W.5 also seized five bills Exs P1to P5 from the table. In that case, for the demand and receipt of the ill-gotten amount, there is no corroboration for the evidence of P.W.1. Onlyunder such circumstances, the appeal preferred by the accused before this Court was allowed with the following observations. " There cannot be any doubt in this case that thecurrency notes were recovered from the shirt pocket ofthe appellant. But the case of the appellant is thathe had hung his shirt in the chair and went for a bathand that he came half an hour later and wore the shirtand within a few seconds after that P.W.5 and otherscame. By this statement, he suggested that the moneycould have been planted in his shirt without hisknowledge. According to him there was misunderstanding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ between P.W.1 and himself as on prior occasions heraised objections in respect of the bills. ........ Themost important question to be considered is whether theappellant demanded Rs.20/- before the trap.

We haveonly the evidence of P.W.1 . It is not disputed thatthe appellant used to s tay in the office and take bedthere. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly reliesupon the fact that at the time when P.W.5 and otherswent there they saw him actually working on the tablein respect of the matter relating to P.W.1 and they hadseized those records, and from this , he would urgethat the appellant must have been attending to the workof P.W.1 only after receiving money. I do not thinkthat it is the only inference that can be drawn. Theappellant admitted that as a matter of routine, he washaving all those records on his table and attending tothem. There is nothing improbable about it as he usedto stay there and do work even out of officehours.. . . . . . . . Though there may be suspicionagainst the appellant there is no conclusive proof thathe accepted Rs.20/- in consequence of a demand made byhim. The possibility of P.W.1 planting the money in theshirt pocket when it was kept hung in the chair cannotbe eliminated. " But the said dictum will not be applicable to the present facts of thecase. Here in this case, the demand and acceptance was spoken to by P.W.2as well as by P.W.3, the trap witness. Whereas the same is lacking in thecase relied on by the learned counsel above.

Subsequently, P.W.1 and P.W.2 met the appellant and paid Rs.250/- towardslease arrears due by P.W.1. P.W.1 not willing to pay the bribe amount gavea complaint Ex P1 to the Inspector of Vigilance and Anti Corruption on10.7.1987 and thereafter a trap team was formed by the said Inspector andafter the successful completion of the trap, a charge sheet was filedagainst the appellant. The defence taken by the accused in that case wasP.W.1 came with P.W.2 and informed that P.w.6(Thyagarajan) who was due in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ lease amount to the temple, had requested him(P.W.1) to hand overRs.2000/- towards his lease rent arrears. But P.W.1 told that Thyagarajanwould himself come and collect the receipt the next day. The trial Judgeaccepting the evidence of the accused, dismissed the case of theprosecution on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove theguilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and particularly thedemand and acceptance of a sum of Rs.200/- by the appellant as illegalgratification was not proved by the prosecution.

On appeal, this Courtallowed the appeal which necessitated the accused to approach the Honourable Apex Court wherein the Honourable Apex Court allowing theappeal preferred by the accused observed as follows: "The evidence throws out a clear alternative that theaccused was falsely implicated at the instance of P.Ws1,2 and 6. If two views were possible from the verysame evidence, it cannot be said that the prosecutionhad proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellanthad received the sum of Rs.200/- as illegalgratification. Thus the trial Court was right inholding that the charge against the appellant was notproved and the High Court was not justified ininterfering with the same. "The important point to be noted in this case is that the definite defenceraised by the accused in that case is that the amount received by him wasnot of any bribe amount but only the arrears of lease amount due to himfrom P.W.6 Thyagarajan which was tendered through P.W.1 on the date ofoccurrence.

But that is not the case herein. Here absolutely, there isno defence taken by the accused. The accused has not examined any witnesson his side. There is no explanation forthcoming from the accused why hewent to Victoria Nagar guest house after completing his work at 3.00p.mitself, again at 6.05p.m., It is the definite case of the prosecution thatthe accused after demand of bribe amount for having effected shifting ofthe telephone indicator from Anna Nagar guest house to Victoria Nagarguest house, on 20.1.1994 and after demanding Rs 500/- and receivingRs.200/- on that day itself from P.W.2 and thereafter on 28.1.1994, he hadinstalled a new push button type instrument at Victoria Nagar guest houseat 3.00p.m itself has demanded the balance of principal amount of Rs.300/-for the service, he has rendered and returned by saying that he will comein the evening to collect the bribe amount. There is absolutely no defenceprojected by the accused in this case and there is no explanationforthcoming from the accused as to why he went for the second time atabout 6.05p.m., to Victoria Nagar guest house, when the fact remains that Victoria Nagar guest house is not the working place of the accused. Thedemand of Rs.300/- on 28.1.1994 by way of bribe was spoken to by P.W.2 andthe acceptance of the same was proved through P.W.2 and P.W.3 a trapwitness. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

They arranged a trappursuant to which the appellant was caught red handed with the taintedcurrency notes. Later he was charge sheeted. The trial Court and the HighCourt found that the public servant failed to prove that the amountreceived by him was legally due to him otherwise. The trial Courtconvicted him under Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947, and sentenced himto rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.5,000/- Though hewas convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code also the Courtdid not award any separate sentence on that account. In an appeal, the High Court concurred with the finding and confirmed the conviction reducedthe imprisonment limb of the sentence to one day but enhanced the finelimb to Rs.3000/-. When the matter came up before the Honourable ApexCourt by way of appeal, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows: "P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the Anti-corruptionBureau.

They arranged a trap to catch the appellantred handed. After the scheme for the trap wasfinalised the appellant was informed of the readinessof P.W.1 to pay the amount desired by him. On25.2.1980, around 8.00 p.m., the appellant went to theoffice of P.W.1. On seeing him P.W.1 switched on aconcealed tape recorder. There was some dialoguebetween them which got recorded on the tape recorder. However, when other customers visited the same officethe appellant indicated to P.W.1 through agesticulation about his readiness to accept thepromised money then and there. It was then that P.W.1handed over the pre-arranged currency notes to theappellant. P.W.1 transmitted the message through asignal to the members of the Anti-corruption Squad whowere waiting outside. Those persons then rushed tothe room and caught the appellant red- handed with thetainted currency notes. Later the case was chargesheeted against him.

After recording the evidencerelating to the said trap the Special Judge examinedthe appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant filed a writtenstatement in which he said, inter alia, that he went https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the office of P.W.1 on the said night as he wasrequested to reach there for a discussion aboutcertain programmes of the "Sindhi Association" inwhich, perhaps both were interested. While they weretalking on that subject some persons reached there. Then the appellant stood up and was about to leave theplace, but then P.W.1 paid him some money saying thatit was a gift. The appellant told him that he wouldnot accept any such gift. However, the appellantwanted to ask his manager as to why P.W.1 was givingsuch gifts to him. But before he could actually handover the money back to P.W.1 he was caught by theoffice bearers of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.

Theabove is, in substance, the statement made by theappellant in Court through the written submission. "After elaborately discussing about the meaning of gratification as definedin various dictionaries, it has further held by the Honourable Apex Courtas follows: " Where, in any trial or an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub section(1) of Section 13 it is proved that anaccused person has accepted or obtained or has a greedtoo accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or forany other person, any gratification ( other than legalremuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, itshall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, thathe accepted or obtained or agreed to accept orattempted to obtain that gratification or that valuablething, as the case may be, as a motive or reward suchas is mentioned in Section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which heknows to be inadequate.

"The premise to be established on the facts for drawingthe presumption is that there was payment or acceptanceof gratification. Once the said premise is establishedthe inference to be drawn is that the saidgratification was accepted "as motive or reward" fordoing or forbearing to do any official act. So theword"gratification" need not be stretched to meanreward because reward is the outcome of the presumptionwhich the Court has to draw on the factual premise thatthere was payment of gratification. This will again befortified by looking at the collocation of twoexpressions adjacent to each other like "gratificationor any valuable thing. " If acceptance of any valuablething can help to draw the presumption that it wasaccepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing todo an official act, the word"gratification" must betreated in the context to mean any payment for giving https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ satisfaction to the public servant who received it.

InMoohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan.v.State of Maharashtrathis Court has taken the same meaning for theword"gratification" appearing in Section 4(1) of the PCAct of 1947. We quote the following observations. (SCCP.603. Para 7) The primary condition for acting on thelegal presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act is thatthe prosecution should have proved that what theaccused received was gratification. The word"gratification' is not defined in the Act. Hence itmust be understood in its literal meaning. In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of CurrentEnglish, the word"gratification" shown to have themeaning " to give pleasure or satisfaction to'. Theword 'gratification' is used in Section 4(1) to denoteacceptance of something to the pleasure or satisfactionof the recipient. " We , therefore, repel thecontention of the learned counsel that the prosecutionhas a further duty to prove beyond the fact that P.W.1had paid the demanded money to the appellant forenabling it to lay the hand on the legal presumptionemployed in the Prevention of Corruption Act.

We maypoint out that the defence did not even attempt toprove that the amount received by the appellant was notaccepted as a reward or motive for the official actdone by him, except the ipse-dixit of the appellant, that too made at the fag end of the trial when he putin a written statement of his defence. Hence noexception can be taken to the conviction passed by thetrial Court which was concurred by the High Court inrespect of the offence under Section 5(2) of the Actof 1947.''Ultimately the sentence awarded by the trial Court was restored by the Apex Court. So from the above ratio, it is clear that the bounden duty ofthe prosecution in a case like this, is to prove the demand and acceptanceof the bribe amount by the accused and nothing more than that as far asthis case is concerned, even though the ill-gotten amount is meagre, theprosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that only as a publicservant, the accused for the service, he has rendered to P.W.2's Companyhas demanded and accepted Rs.

500/- ie., Rs.200/- on 20.1.1994 and thebalance of Rs.300/- on 28.1.1994 and was caught red-handed in the trapmechanism adopted by P.W.5. The accused has been convicted under Section7 of the Act as well as under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act andsentenced six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- withdefault sentence under Section 7 of the Act and one year rigorousimprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- with default sentence under Section 13(2) R/W 13(1)(d) of the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/