Bail SlipThe v. State rep byThe Inspector of Police,Special Police EstablishmentCentral Bureau of Investigation,Anti-Corruption Branch,Chennai

On the basis of the trap conducted by the Income Tax officials on thesupervision of PW.4, a charge sheet was filed by the Investigationofficer PW.7 against A1 and A2 under section 120B I.P.C r/w section 7of Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 13(2) r/w section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The case was taken on file by the Special Judge for CBIcases, Madras as C.C.No.41 of 1998 . On appearance of the accused onsummons, copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to theaccused and when the charges framed against the accused were explainedto them, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On the side of the Prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examinedand Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. 5. PW.1 Thiru. T.L. Mani, is the Commissioner of Income-Tax,Chennai. During the relevant period, who had issued order ofsanction of prosecution against the accused under Ex.P2. Accordingto PW.1, A1 Ramachandran was working as Income Tax Officer, SpecialWard, incharge of survey in New cases in (Circle 4) and Ex.P1 is therules confirming the powers of appointing authority for Group B andGroup C officers. A2, Abdul Hameed was working as Inspector ofIncome Tax and he was a Group C officer of the Income Tax Department,whereas A1 is the Group B officer. PW.1 would depose that after goingthrough the documents mentioned in Ex.P2 sanction order and aftergetting himself satisfied with regard to the prima facie case has beenmade out he issued Ex.P2, sanction order against A1 and A2. 6. PW.2, Vijayan would depose that he is running a financecompany by name Arasan Finance at Wannarapettai and there are eightshareholders to the said company and that on 22.8.1997 A2 came toArasan finance and informed that there is a complaint received againstArasan finance in the Income Tax Department and when he enquired aboutthe details of the complaint, A2 asked him to go to Kannammai buildingand to meet A1 Ramachandran, an Income Tax Officer at seventh floor.On 22.8.1997, he along with three other partners of Arasan financewent to Kannammai building and met A1 and A2 and he was alsoidentified A1 in the court, who had informed him that a complaint hasbeen received against the said Arasan Finance regarding evasion ofpayment of income tax and A1 had demanded Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelvethousand) only as an illegal gratification to close the said file andout of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only A1 demandedRs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and A2 is to be given thebalance of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only. PW.2 had refusedto pay the said bribe amount to A1 and A2. A1 threatened that if thedemanded amount was not given, he will search the finance company andhis house and also will seal the house and the company. PW.2informed him that his inability to go to Kannammai building on26.8.1997. So, A1 asked him to come on 1.9.1997 instead of 26.8.1997 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ . Since, they could not turn up on 1.9.1997, A2 came to his house on2.9.1997 and asked him to go and meet A1 on 9.9.1997 at about 3.00 p.mwith the amount. Since PW.2 is not willing to pay any illegalgratification, he went to Shastri Bhavan on 9.9.1997 and preferredEx.P3, complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, who was goingthrough the complaint, sent PW.4 Premanand and directed him to takenecessary action on the complaint, Ex.P3. After a preliminaryenquiry, PW.4 had asked him (PW.2) to come in the afternoon by 2.30p.m and also instructed him to bring Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only. In the afternoon, he along with his other partners went to theoffice of Premanand (PW.4) where he saw PW.3, Veeraselvam. PW.3Veeraselvam belongs to other department. PW.4 had read over thecomplaint to Veeraselvam and also brought a glass tumbler and preparedSodium Carbonate solution. It was a colourless solution. WhenMuralidharan was asked to dip his fingers in the said solution, thesaid solution maintained its colourless nature and that he handed overRs.5000/- to Premanand, who smeared phenolphthalein powder and askedMuralidharan to handle the said currency notes. After touching thosenotes, Muralidharan was asked to dip his hands inside the SodiumCarbonate Solution. When he did so, the solution became pink incolour. Afterwards, PW.4 Premanand placed the currency notes intohis shirt pocket and informed him (Pw.2) to hand over the saidcurrency notes to A1 and A2 on demand and till then he advised him notto touch the said currency notes which were put by him in his shirtpocket. PW.3, Veeraselvam was also asked to accompany him and tostay with him to watch the proceedings. PW.4 has preferred a MahazarEx.P4 for what had transpired in his office in which he has alsosigned and the said mahazar was prepared by 3.30 p.m and he along withother witnesses and other C.B.I officials, went to Kannammai buildingin two cars at about 4.00 p.m on the same day and that they reachedthe said building at about 4.30 p.m. PW.2 and PW.3 went to seventhfloor of the building where the office of A1 is situate. When theyentered the office room of A1 Ramachandran, Ramachandran (A1) enquiredabout PW.3 Veeraselvam. PW.2 introduced PW.3 as his Accountant. A1asked PW.3 to stay away from the office and asked about the otherpartners namely Soundarapandi, Ponraj, Mahalingam, Ramanathan of PW.2.At that time, A2 also came there and A1 enquired whether PW.2 hasbrought the amount demanded by him for which PW.2 informed him that hehad brought only Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and assured topay the balance within one or two days. Immediately, he took overRs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only from his shirt pocket andhanded over the same to A1. After counting the same, A1 put theamount into his shirt pocket and within two minutes the C.B.Iofficials entered into the room and caught hold of A1. After thearrival of Premanand (PW.4), A1 was arrested and A1 was asked to diphis fingers in the Sodium Carbonate Solution and when he dipped hisright hand into the solution, the solution became pink in colour.Another glass of Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared andRamachandran was asked to dip his left hand into it. When he dipped https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his left hand into the solution, the colour of the solution turnedpink. Both the bottles containing the Sodium Carbonate Solutionwere sealed and marked as 'A' and 'B' respectively. PW.4 askedRamachandran, A1 to hand over the bribe amount to PW.3, and A1 actedaccordingly. PW.3 compared the currency note numbers with that ofthe numbers noted in the Mahazar and informed that both the numberstally with each other. M.O.1 series are the ten notes of Rs.500/-denomination each. When the shirt of Ramachandran was also dipped inthe Sodium Carbonate Solution , the solution turned pink in colour.The said solution was also sealed and marked as 'C'. The shirt wasalso packed and sealed and marked with letter 'D' and a mahazar, Ex.P5was also prepared for the recovery of the above said articles in whichhe has also signed as a witness. A copy of Ex.P5 mahazar was alsofurnished to A1 and A2. 7. PW.3 is an Enforcement Officer in the Directorate ofEnforcement, at Calicut, Kerala in the year 1996-1998. On the dateof deposition, he was working as Senior Personal Assistant to theDeputy Director at Enforcement Directorate at Chennai. On 9.9.1997at about 1.30 p.m, he was called by the Deputy Director of EnforcementDirectorate and asked him to go to C.B.I office, Chennai and to meetPremanand, Inspector of C.B.I and accordingly, at about 2.15 p.m onthe same day, he went to C.B.I office and met Inspector Premanand(PW.4). 8. When, he went there a person by name Muralidharan belonging toC.P.W.D office was also present there along with D.S.P. Ravikumar,D.S.P. Ramasamy and Inspector Hari Om Prakash and two constables andthat PW.4 had introduced him to other officials and read over thecomplaint given by Vijayan (PW.2). In the said complaint, he statedthat PW.2 is one of the partners of the Arasan Finance Company and atKannammai building, the income tax officials had demanded Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only as illegal gratification for A1 andanother Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only for A2. Premanand wasexplained to him that the C.B.I officials have formed a trap to catchthe culprits red handed and for the trap he asked him to be a witnessand he has also demonstrated the Sodium Carbonate Solution test to himand Muralidharan was asked to dip his hand in the Sodium CarbonateSolution. When he dipped there was no colour change in the solution.But he has asked PW.2 to hand over Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only brought by him and PW.2 also handed over ten notes of Rs.500/-denomination each amounting to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) onlyto him and on which PW.4 smeared the phenolphthalein powder and askedMuralidharan to handle the same and afterwards asked Muralidharan todip his hands in the Sodium Carbonate Solution. While Muralidharandipped his hand into the Sodium Carbonate solution, it turned pink incolour and asked Vijayan to keep the said amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupeesfive thousand) only with an instruction that he shall not touch thesame till he hand over the same to the accused on demand. PW.4 has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further requested him (PW.3) to accompany Vijayan to A1's office andto watch the proceedings and further instructed that as soon as A1received the bribe amount, he has asked to give signal by touching hishead repeatedly. Ex.P4, Mahazar was prepared in which the currencynote numbers were noted in his presence. Vijayan was having onlyRs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only at that time and that he washaving Rs.70/- in his pocket besides an identity card and a pen.After the demonstration was over, both Muralidharan and otherofficials have washed their hands and the test kit was taken in asuitcase by the C.B.I officials. The kit contained three glasstumblers, the Sodium Carbonate Powder and other stationeries likeseal, wax etc. Phenolphthalein powder was kept in the office itself.The said demonstration was over by 3.30 p.m on the same day. PW.4asked the partners of the PW.2's Finance company to go to income taxoffice at Kannammai building and the C.B.I officials and the witnesseswent in two separate cars to Kannammai building and the car wasstopped at Model School, near Kannammai building and he was asked togo along with Vijayan to seventh floor at Kannammai building whereinthe Income Tax Office is housed. He and Vijayan went to the officeof Ramachandran. The other shareholders stayed in the ground floor.When they met Ramachandran (A1), Ramachandran asked "Who he is ? "pointing out him (PW.2) Vijayan introduced PW.3 as his accountant.Immediately, A1 asked him to stand outside. Vijayan and Ramachandranalone were present in the room and he (PW.3) was standing in thecorner of the room and the door was kept ajar and that PW.3 was ableto see A1 and Vijayan from the place where he stood. As per theinstruction of A1, PW.2 also brought the other partners of his financecompany. By that time, A2 was also present there. A1 enquired thepartners of the finance company, about the business and about themaintaining of the accounts. PW.2 Vijayan informed A1 that theaccounts have been maintained properly in his finance company.Thereafter, A1 asked Vijayan and his partners, whether they havebrought Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand) only. Vijayan (PW.2)informed that he has brought only Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only and the balance of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only willbe given within one or two days. A1 asked Vijayan to hand overRs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to him. Immediately, Vijayantook Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only from his shirt pocket andhanded over the same to A1 Ramachandran. After counting thecurrency notes, A1 placed the amount in his shirt pocket.Immediately, pW.3, who watched the same from outside the room of A1gave signal by touching his head repeatedly. Immediately, C.B.Iofficials came to the seventh floor. The team consists of PW.4,Muralidharan and another witness (PW.3) and they all went to A1'sroom. After introducing himself PW.4, Premanand , Inspector ofPolice, also introduced other officials and witnesses to A1. Onhearing this, A1 became nervous and spell bound. The C.B.I officialsarrested A1. PW.4 prepared Sodium Carbonate Solution and asked A1,Ramachandran to dip his right hand in it. When he did so, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ solution became pink in colour. The said solution was sealed andmarked as 'A', which is M.O.2, in which he and Muralidharan havesigned as a witness. In another glass tumbler, PW.4 preparedSodium Carbonate Solution and asked A1, Ramachandran to dip his lefthand into it. When A1 dipped his left hand in the said solution,it turned pink in colour. After affixing his seal, it was marked as'B'by PW.4, in which he and Muralidharan have signed as witness.M.O.3 is the said solution. PW.4 asked Ramachandran to hand over thebribe amount received by him from PW.2 to Pw.3 and that he collectedthe said amount and counted the same and also checked the currencynote numbers with that of the numbers noted in the mahazar and foundtallied. The said currency notes are M.O.1 series. Afterwards, PW.4asked A1 to remove his shirt and the shirt pocket was dipped inanother Sodium Carbonate Solution which also turned pink in colour.The said bottle of Sodium Carbonate Solution was also sealed andmarked as 'C' in which also he and Muralidharan have signed aswitnesses. M.O.4 is the said bottle. The shirt of Ramachandranwas packed and sealed and marked as 'D' in which also he andMuralidharan have signed as witnesses. M.O.5 is the parcelcontaining the shirt of A1. M.O.6 is the specimen seal. Anothershirt was provided to A1. On the personal examination of A1, it wasfound that in his pocket a black colour purse containing Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only. He also possessed anidentity card and a telephone diary. The purse containing Rs.1,500/-(Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only, identity card and diarywere returned to A1, Ramachandran. The shirt pocket of A2 was alsosearched and a sum of Rs.60/-, an identity card and some coins werefound in his shirt pocket besides his spectacles. The file kept onthe table of Ramachandran was also seized by PW.4. PW.3 has alsosigned in each and every page of the said file, which contained 17pages. Ex.p7 is the said file, which contained the complaint againstArasan Finance. A recovery mahazar was prepared under Ex.p5, inwhich also he , Vijayan and other shareholders of the finance companyof PW.2, and C.B.I officials have signed. Both A1 and A2 werereleased on bail in the income tax office itself. PW.4, theInspector of police, C.B.I would depose that from 1993 November till14th February 1999, he was working as Inspector of C.B.I at Chennai.On 9.9.1997 at about 10.30 a.m, Tmt. Lakshmi Prasath, I.P.S, theSuperintendent of Police, CBI called him and informed that from PW.2,a partner of Arasan Finance, the income tax officials by nameRamachandran, A1, and Abdul Hameed, A2 have demanded illegalgratification and on that score PW.2 has preferred a complaint to CBIand asked him to enquire into the same. Ex.P3 is the complainthanded over by the Superintendent of police. After ascertaining thatwhat is stated in the complaint are true, he had registered a case inR.C. 56(A)/97 under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Ex.P9 is the First Information Report. To catch the accused redhanded, he formed a trap with the help of independent witnesses fromEnforcement Office and also C.P.W.D. and made arrangements to get https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Veeraselvam from Enforcement Office and Muralidharan from C.P.W.D.Office at Shastri Bhavan. PW.2 also informed him that he is havingonly Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and not Rs.12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand) only as demanded by the accused and he askedPW.2 and other witnesses to be present on 9.9.1997 at about 2.30 p.min his office. On 9.9.1997, the above said witnesses and other CBIofficials and PW.2 and his partners of the Arasan finance company werepresent in his office and in their present, he read over the complaintin detail and also demonstrated the phenolphthalein test SodiumCarbonate test before them (as spoken to by PW.3 in his deposition)and after preparing a mahazar, Ex.P4 for what had transpired in hisoffice after noting the currency note numbers in Ex.P4, asked thewitnesses and PW.2 to go to Kannammai building where the income taxoffice is housed and for the purpose of meeting A1, Ramachandran inhis office. He and other witnesses and CBI officials went in anothercar and waited in third and fourth floor of Kannammai buildingrespectively. PW.2 and another witness Veeraselvam were asked to goand meet A1 in his office and Veeraselvam was instructed to givesignal by touching his head repeatedly soon after A1 received thebribe amount and that at about 5.10 p.m from the seventh floorVeeraselvam had signalled by combing his hair repeatedly. On seeingthe signal, he and other CBI officials went to the seventh floor andentered into the room of A1 and after introducing himself to A1, heprepared Sodium Carbonate Solution in a tumbler and asked the accusedA1 to dip his hand in the said solution and doing so, the colour ofthe solution turned pink and the same was marked as 'A'. M.O.2 isthe said bottle. He has prepared another Sodium Carbonate Solutionin another tumbler and asked A1 to dip his left hand in it. Whiledoing so, the colour of the solution became pink which has marked as'B'. M.O.3 is the said bottle. He asked A1 Ramachandran to takeout the ill gotten money from PW.2 . Accordingly, A1 took outRs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only from his shirt pocket andplaced it on the table. Then, PW.4 asked Muralidharan to check thecurrency note numbers in the said Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand)only produced by A1 with that of the currency note numbers noted inEx.P4 Mahazar. Accordingly, Muralidharan checked those numbers andinformed that they tally with each other. PW.4 also recovered theshirt worn by Ramachandran, A1 at the time of occurance and dipped theshirt pocket in another Sodium Carbonate Solution and found thesolution turning pink in colour. The said solution was marked as'C' and the said bottle is M.O.4. The shirt recovered from A1 wasmarked as 'D' and both Veeraselvam and Muralidharan have signed inthe label affixed on the shirt marked as 'D'. M.O.5 is the saidshirt. He has also recovered Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) onlyproduced by A1, which is M.O.1 series containing ten notes of Rs.500/-denomination each. All the recovered articles were sealed. M.O.6is the specimen seal. The purse containing Rs.1,500/- (Rupees onethousand and five hundred) only and the visiting cards found inpossession of A1 were returned to A1, Ramachandran. He has also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conducted search on A2, Abdul Hameed and found Rs.46/50 and anidentity card, pen and a pair of spectacles, which were also returnedto Abdul Hameed, A2. He has also recovered Ex.P7 file relating toArasan Finance from A1. Ex.P8 is the complaint regarding ArasanFinance. The witnesses have signed each and every page of Ex.P7.Both Vijayan and Veeraselvam have also narrated the incident whichtook place in the room of A1, which was stated in Ex.P5. He hasarrested A1 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and releasedA1 on the same day. He has also furnished a copy of Ex.P5 to A1.He has also conducted a search in the house of A1 at Door No.15,Krishnappa Mudali Street, Triplicane, Chennai- 5. Ex.p10 is thesearch list. He has also conducted a search in the house of A2 atDoor No.18, Zaffur Hussain II Street, Royapettah, Chennai-14, on10.4.1997 at about 12.35 p.m. Nothing was recovered from A2's housein the said search. Ex.p11 is the search list. Afterwards, he hadhanded over the file relating to this case to PW.4 Premanand and hehas also sent the copy of FIR to the court and other officials.9. PW.5 is the Joint Commissioner of income tax, Central Range-I,Chennai. Upto third week of June 1997, he was working as DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax, Range-7 and at that time, A1 Ramachandranand A2, Abdul Hameed were working as income tax officer and income taxinspector respectively and both of them were under his administrativecontrol. The memorandum dated 23.03.1997 was forwarded by him tothe income tax officer, Ward-4, regarding tax evasion petition in thecases of one Chelladurai Nadar and others. The memorandum was markedas Ex.p12. Along with Ex.P12, he has forwarded Ex.P8, an anonymousletter also. During the said time, A1 was income tax officer of CityCircle IV (Survey). On receipt of anonymous complaint, the incometax office is supposed to look into the allegation and enquire thesame. After the enquiry, he will initiate assessment proceedingsagainst the person to bring home the tax net. On 29.5.1997, heforwarded tax evasion petition in the case of Paramasivam Chetty (R.S.Metal), Chennai to the income tax officer, City Ward IV, which isEx.P13. The letter dated 29.05.1997 CBI/97-98/R was also sent toincome tax officer, City Ward IV (Survey), which is Ex.P14. 10. PW.6 is the upper division clerk in the income taxdepartment Circle No.IV. Afterwards, he was transferred to theoffice of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-7, and at thattime Thiru. Nigam, PW.5, was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.He would admit that the recitals in Ex.P13 were written by him andthat PW.5 had sent Ex.P12 to the income tax department and at thattime A1 was the income tax officer in City Circle-IV and that therewas only one income tax officer (Survey) in Chennai at the relevantpoint of time.11. PW.7 is the Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai and thatCrime No.RC 56A/97 was transferred too him by PW.4 Premanand. As per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the orders of the Superintendent of Police on 29.9.1997, he examinedthe witnesses Muralidharan who was working as Junior Engineer CPWD andrecorded his statement. He has also examined PW.3 Veeraselvam on13.9.1997 and recorded his statement. He has examined PW.4Premanand, Vijayan (PW.2, the complainant) and other witnesses andrecorded their statements. On 7.10.1997 he has examined DSPRaghukumar, CBI and recorded his statement. He has also examinedother witnesses and recorded their statements. He has sentrequisition letter to the court to sent the sample M.O.2 to M.O.4 forchemical analysis under Ex.P15. Ex.P16 is Analysis report receivedfrom the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completing hisinvestigation, he has filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 u/s. 120 BIPC r/w.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on 8.12.1998.12. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused,they denied their complexity with the crime. 13. After going through the oral and documentary evidence letin before the trial Court, the trial Judge on the basis of theevidence, has come to the conclusion that all the three chargeslevelled against the accused A1 and A2 have been proved beyond anyreasonable doubt and accordingly the learned trial Judge convicted theaccused A1 and A2 and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. And a fineof Rs.1,000/- with default sentence for each charge and furtherordered the sentence to run concurrently and set of was also givenunder section 428 Cr.P.C. 14. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, theaccused A1 and A2 have preferred this appeal. 15. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whetherthe conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court against A1 andA2 under section 120 B IPC r/w.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988and under sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988 are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in thememorandum of appeal?16. The Point:- The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants wouldcontend that the charges levelled against A2 has not been provedbeyond any reasonable doubt as held by the learned trial judge. Thelearned senior counsel would focussed the attention of this court toEx.P3 wherein only A1's name has been mentioned with his initial asB.Ramachandran. But, A2's name was not referred to with hisinitial but he was referred only as Thiru. Abdul Hameed. Whereas inEx.P9, FIR, which was registered by PW.4, the Inspector of Police,Thiru. Premanand, the accused name have been entered with initials https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ i.e. B. Ramachandran(A1) and S.S.Abdul Hameed(A2). The learnedsenior counsel would contend that only on the basis of Ex.P3,complaint, FIR, Ex.P9 was registered by PW.4 and it is not explainedby the prosecution and from where they got the initial for A2, whichis not found in Ex.P3. Yet another point which glares against thecase of the prosecution as far as A2 is concerned is that during thetrap, according to the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 , when they wentinside the office room of A1, A1 alone was there, demanding the bribeamount. A2 entered into the room of A1 only after the trap was over.It is pertinent to note that nothing was recovered from A2 in recoverymahazar. The only allegation under Ex.P3, complaint is that to closethe anonymous complaint received under Ex.P8 against the evasion oftax by the Arasan Finance Company run by PW.2 Vijayan, A1 being theincome tax officer, who is dealing with the file under Ex.P8 complaintagainst the said finance company of PW.2, to close the said file, hasdemanded illegal gratification of Rs.12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand)only from A1 through A2, who according to the prosecution had visitedthe said finance company and informed the demand of A1 to PW.2.Even, the evidence of PW.2 in this regard was not corroborated by anyother independent witnesses like other partners of the financecompany. Under such circumstance, without any evidence against A2,the trial court has also convicted A2, which is necessarily to beinterfered with by this court. 17. Let us come to A1. As far as A1 is concerned, he wasarrested by trap. The evidence of PW.2, PW.3, and PW.4 will becogent and convincing to bring home the guilt of the accused under thethree charges indicated by me in the earlier paragraphs. PW.3,Veeraselvam is an independent witness belonging to EnforcementDirectorate. He has no motive against A1 to depose falsehoodagainst him. The trap has been spoken to by PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4.When incriminating circumstances were put to A1 under section 313Cr.P.C, for question No.23 A1 would put up a new story. Accordingto A1, on 9.9.1997 two persons entered into his room and enquiredabout the tax evasion petition and that they informed him that theybelong to Arasan finance company and one of them told him that he isan Accountant in the said company and that the other person is Vijayan(PW.2) and he informed Vijayan that after the receipt of the noticefrom the department, he has to come. After both of them left hisroom, he went to the toilet which is 80 feet away from his office roomand at that time one person was seen coming out of his room andwithout responding to his call, he moved towards the lift room andthereafter, he went into his room and saw currency notes on his tableand after collecting those notes, he was moving towards third floorwith a view to hand over the same to the Deputy Commissioner and atthat time a person caught hold of his hand introducing that he is aCBI official and pushed him inside the room and at that time thecurrency notes fell on the ground. But the said officer threatenedhim to put those notes into his shirt pocket and by fear, he also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ placed those notes into his (A1) shirt pocket. So, the above saidexplanation given by A1 is an unbelievable story. The naturalconduct of a person that too an officer of the income tax is if anysuspected person enters into his room and without responding hisrequest to stop, moving away from the place, he would have naturallyraise alarm and asked his subordinates to catch hold of that person.Even after finding currency notes on his table without touching thesame, A1 being an income tax officer, should have called for theassistance of the others and informed the same to his higherofficials. But to our dismay A1 would say that he collected thosecurrency notes from his table and he was about to hand over the sameto the Deputy Commissioner and at that time a person introducinghimself as a CBI official pushed him into his room. A1 even has notidentified who is that CBI official, who pushed him inside the room.If it is so, the natural conduct of the person must be to give acomplaint against the said CBI Official to the higher officials of theCBI Department that a case has been foisted against A1. So far, A1has not preferred any complaint against any CBI officials in thisregard. So, it cannot be said that the guilt against the accusedunder the above sections of law is not proved against him. Theprosecution has with oral and documentary evidence has proved theguilt of the accused under section 7(1) and sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 18. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellantswould contend that the offence under section 7 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act as well as under section 13(1)(d) are more or lesssimilar in nature and there cannot be two convictions against A1 undersection 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under section13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In support of hiscontention, the learned counsel for the appellants relying on AIR 2007SC 51 (The State Vs. Parthiban), contended that demanding andreceiving illegal gratification is an act against a public servantwhich constitute an offence both under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that it has been held in thesaid dictum that an offence being single transaction but fall undertwo different section the offender cannot be liable for doublepenalty. The observation in the above said dictum at para 9 runs asfollows:-"Every acceptance of illegal gratificationwhether preceded by a demand or not would becovered by Section 7 of the Act. But if theacceptance of an illegal gratification is inpursuance of a demand by the public servant, thenit would also fall under section 13(1)(d) of theAct. The act alleged against the respondent, ofdemanding and receiving illegal gratificationconstitutes an offence both under Section 7 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The offencebeing a single transaction, but falling under twodifferent Sections, the offender cannot be liablefor double penalty. But the High Court committedan error in holding that a single act of receivingan illegal gratification, where there was demandand acceptance, cannot be an offence both underSection 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.As the offence is one which falls under twodifferent sections providing differentpunishments, the offender should not be punishedwith a more severe punishment than the court couldaward to the person for any one of the twooffences. In this case, minimum punishment underSection 7 is six months and the minimum punishmentunder Section 13(1)(d) is one year. If an offencefalls under both Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and thecourt wants to award only the minimums punishment,then the punishment would be one year."For this proposition of law there is no contra ratio-decidendiproduced by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Section 7 of thePrevention of Corruption Act,1988 deals with public servant takinggratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an officialAct. Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act also deals with the criminalmisconduct by a public servant by means of corrupt or illegal means,obtains for himself of for any other person any valuable thing orpecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as a public servant,obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing orpecuniary advantage; or while holding office as a public servant,obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantagewithout any public interest. So as observed in the above said dictumboth the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Actand the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act are one and thesame ie. a public servant receiving illegal gratification forperforming his official function. The learned trial judge hasconvicted the accused A1 both under section 7 and also under Section13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 to undergotwo years RI under each of the above said sections and also leviedseparate fine of Rs.1000/- under each of the above said sections oflaw, which is illegal in view of the above said dictum of theHonourable Apex Court. So A1 can be convicted only under Section 13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and theconviction and sentence by the trial Court under Section 7 of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is liable to be set aside. A1 isliable to be punished only under section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act. The point is answered accordingly. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conviction and sentence against A2 in C.C.No.41 of 1998 on the fileof the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, is set asideand he is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Asfar as A1 is concerned the conviction and sentence by the trial courtunder Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1988, is confirmed and sentenced to under go one year R.I insteadof two years and as far as fine against A1 is concerned it is to besustained in respect of one count i.e under section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d). The conviction and sentence against A1 under Section 120B r/w. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is set aside. Thefine imposed under section 120 B IPC r/w. 7 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act is liable to be returned to A1. A2 is entitled to getback the entire fine imposed against him. The trial court isdirected to secure A1 to undergo the unexpended portion of thesentence. The bail bond against A2 stands cancelled.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarmraTo, 1. The Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.2. The Inspector of Police,Special Police EstablishmentCentral Bureau of Investigation,Anti-Corruption Branch,Chennai. 3. The Special Public Prosecutor, Chennai.+2ccs to Mr.V.Krishnakumar,Advocate Sr 18442MJ (CO)km/29.3. Crl.A.No. 553 of 2000