BAIL SLIPThe v. The State of Tamil Nadurep by the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice

Prevention of Corruption Act and section 109 of the Indian Penal Codeand were sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and topay a fine of Rs.10,000/= in default to undergo a further period ofthree months simple imprisonment each. All the aforesaid accusedviz., A2 and A4 to A9 have filed Criminal Appeal Nos.452 to 458 of2000. 2. The charges as against the late third accusedV.R.Nedunchezhian were quashed. The tenth accused N.Sasikala and theeleventh accused S.R.Baskaran were acquitted of the charges framedagainst them. But, the State chose not to prefer any criminal appealas against the order of acquittal recorded as against those accused. 3. As all these appeals have arisen out of the very samejudgment in Special C.C.No.15 of 1997, all these cases were taken upfor common disposal.4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.7.1995, thesecond accused T.M.Selvaganapathy, who was the Minister for RuralDevelopment Department sent a Cabinet Note on the subject ofproviding colour television sets to the rural habitations with fiftyfamilies and above for a discussion on the basis of the note put upby A5 Sathyamurthy, the Director of Rural Development. The CabinetNote itself would read that a total fund of 67.72 crores at the rateof Rs.15,000/= per colour television set was required for executingthe scheme proposed thereunder. It is alleged that the price ofRs.15,000/= per colour television set was fixed without anystatistical analysis or enquiry. The Cabinet Note was placed beforethe Council of Ministers presided by the first accused in the meetingthat was held on 25.7.1995. The Cabinet approved the proposal tosupply colour television sets to all rural habitations with fiftyfamilies. It has also been proposed to replace all black and whitetelevision sets available in the panchayat with the colour televisionsets. The source for mobilisation of such a fund also was discussedand a decision was taken. On 15.8.1995, the first accusedSelvi.J.Jayalalitha, during her Independence Day Speech, announcedthat 50,000 colour television sets would be provided to rural areaswith the population of fifty families and above by relaxing theexisting rules. Thereafter, on 7.9.1995, A5 Sathyamurthy addressed aletter to the Director of Industries and Commerce requesting him tofurnish the updated list of television manufacturers in the State ofTamil Nadu as well as from other States. On 4.10.1995, A4 H.M.Pandeyjoined as Secretary, Rural Development Department. Letters weredespatched to 197 colour television manufacturers by certificate ofposting on 6.10.1995 requesting them to fill up the forms sent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ alongwith the letter and despatch the same on or before 20.10.1995.But, only six companies viz., BPL, Videocon, Uptron, Solidaire,Keltron and ECIL alone responded and submitted filled in formspersonally. They also exhibited their sample colour television sets.All the sample sets were evaluated on 20.10.1995 by the EvaluationSub Committee. On 21.10.1995, 26,10,1995, 27.10,1995, 29.10.1995 and31.10.1995, communications were sent to Television Approval Committeeand the aforesaid six colour television manufacturing companies. 5. The Television Approval Committee consisted of A4 H.M.Pandey,Secretary, Rural Development Department as Chairman, A5M.Sathyamurthy, Director Rural Development as Member Secretary andPW4 Mr.Machendranathan, Commissioner of Town Panchayat as a Member.During the course of negotiations, the aforesaid six companies quotedthe price of a colour television set ranging from Rs.14,800/= toRs.16,000/=. Mr.Machendranathan, PW4 informed the TelevisionApproval Committee that on an enquiry, he came to know that the priceof a colour television set was about Rs.12,000/=. The representativeof ECIL Television agreed to supply the colour television at the rateof Rs.14,500/= per set. The said price was agreed by all the otherfive companies. Mr.Machendranathan, PW4 reiterated that the price ofa colour television set was only Rs.12,000/=. At this juncture,PW27, Mr.Jayaraj, a representative of Videocon Television, in fact,agreed to sell the colour Televisions at Rs.12,500/= provided theentire order was placed with them. Though this aspect of the matterwas brought to the notice of the Television Approval Committee, theCommittee refused to accept the same. The representative of Uptronand Videocon Television Companies have deposed before the court thatthey were introduced to A4 H.M.Pandey by A8 Duraisamy at the StateGuest House. A4 promised PW12 Ganesh Kanna, a representative ofUptron India Limited that he would render help to them to obtain theorder. He also informed PW12 to keep in touch with A8 Duraisamy.The latter demanded a sum of Rs.1750/= for A4 H.M.Pandey, A5M.Sathyamurthy and for himself and sum of Rs.1000/= forK.Janardhanan, A7, who was the Personal Assistant to the secondaccused T.M.Selvaganapathy. PW27 Jayaraj, the representative ofVideocon also met the 4th accused H.M.Pandey and the 5th accusedM.Sathyamurthy on 21.10.1995. The fourth accused H.M.Pandey enquiredfrom PW27 as to how much money the Videocon Company would offer perset. PW27 informed him that it all depended upon the quantum oforders placed with them for supply of television sets. The 4thaccused reiterated saying that the quantum of the order would dependonly on the amount offered by them to him per set. A4 also casuallyreferred that there was a chance for fixing the price at the rate ofRs.15,000/= per set and made a demand of Rs.400/= per Television set https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for him. This was agreed by the representative of the VideoconCompany. A2 to A9 engaged themselves in demanding money from theTelevision Companies and negotiated with them the bribe amount. TheMinutes concerning the Television Approval Committee meetings held on21.10.1995, 26.10.1995, 27.10.1995, 29.10.1995 and 31.10.1995 weredrawn as common Minutes. The normal procedure of preparing separateMinutes and intimating them to the individual Members of theTelevision Approval committee was not adhered to. The Minutes of theTelevision Approval Committee was sent on 10.11.1995 as evidenced byEx.P20. 6. On 13.11.1995, the Rural Development Department sent acircular note to the Finance Department under Ex.P28. On 16.11.1995,the Finance Department raised the following objections under Ex.P12. 1) Open Tenders should have been called for accordingto the order issued in G.O.Ms.No.708 Finance (BPE)dated 22.8.1994. 2) Bulk order should earn discount only and notresult in increase in price. 3) The price fixed should be compared with the rulingmarket price to be ascertained from the Commissionerof Statistics. 4) The proposal to pay 100% advance of the televisioncost by the Department of Rural Development is quiteagainst the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.708 Finance(BPE) dated 22.8.1994.7. On 23.11.1995, the Department of Rural Development circulateda note, Ex.P14 by way of reply to the objections raised by theDepartment of Finance. The Finance Department reiterated its earlierstand. As the purchase of the Television sets involves a sum ofRs.75 crores, a Purchase Committee should have been constituted inconsultation with the Finance Department and the procedure adumbratedfor Open Tender system alone should have been followed, it has beenadditionally raised by the Finance Department. 8. The first accused called for a meeting at the camp office on30.11.1995 in which A2, A4, A5, A6, PW5 and PW7 did participate. A2explained to A1 about the views of both the Rural DevelopmentDepartment and the Finance Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. PW5 was thereafter summoned inside the meeting room. PW5 hasdeposed that A1 heard the view of both the Rural DevelopmentDepartment and the Finance Department with respect to the price andultimately accepted the proposal mooted by the Rural DevelopmentDepartment. A1 directed PW5 to prepare the note as per the decisiontaken by her. Thereafter, A4 instructed PW10, the Deputy Secretaryattached to Rural Development Department to prepare a circulationnote, Ex.P17 based on the decision taken by the first accused. Acirculation note was prepared and signed by A4 on 5.12.1995. 10. PW6 took charge as Secretary, Rural Development Departmenton 6.12.1995. PW4 informed him that the colour television sets havebeen proposed to be purchased by paying higher price. PW5 perusedthe entire file on 7.12.1995 and having found that the decision takenon 30.11.1995 by the first accused was not properly recorded,communicated a routine note, Ex.P18 and sent it to the RuralDevelopment Department. On 9.12.1995, PW6 prepared the final note,Ex.P19 which was signed by PW5 on 9.12.1995. A2 and A6 approved thesame on 10.12.1995 and A1 and the deceased A3 approved the same on11.12.1995. 11. The order in G.O.Ms.No.209 marked as Ex.P10 was issued on13.12.1995. Thereafter, the Agents of various television companiespaid commission to A2, A4, A5, A6, A7 and 9 having received the moneyfrom Department of Rural Development. Ganesh Kanna, PW12 andSivasankaran, PW14 have spoken about the bribe paid for the ordersplaced for supply of colour television sets by Uptron. V.K.K.Dasan,PW22 speaks about the bribe paid for the supply of colour televisionsets by Keltron. Jayaraj, PW27 deposes about the bribe paid for theorders placed for supply of television sets by Videocon. Balaji,PW37 and Ravindran, PW58 depose about the bribe paid for the ordersplaced for the supply of colour television sets by BPL and Vaikuntam,PW63 speaks about the bribe paid for the orders placed for thesupply of colour television sets by Solidaire. Padmanabhan, PW76also speaks about the payment of bribe to the accused. 12. The investigation officer, having examined the witnesses andseized the relevant documents, laid the final report as against allthe accused. 13. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 80 were examinedand Exs.P1 to P389 and M.Os. 1 and 2 were marked. On the side of theaccused, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D33 were marked. 14. The Trial Court, having adverted to the voluminous evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ let in on the side of the prosecution, chose to acquit the firstaccused, 10th accused and 11th accused and convict the second accusedand fourth accused to ninth accused. 15. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) wouldvehemently submit that the first accused chose to fix the price ofthe colour television without making any enquiry or receiving anystatistical analysis about the existing market price. She announcedduring the Independence Day Speech on 15.8.1995 that 50,000/= colourtelevision sets would be purchased at a cost of Rs.75 crores beforeMarch 1996 implying thereby the price of each television set wouldcost a sum of Rs.15,000/=. She had full knowledge of the validobjection raised by the Finance Department. The Open Tender Systemhas been given a go-by by the first accused. The clearance of therelevant file without giving any weightage to the objections raisedby the Finance Department would go to show that she had acted inconnivance with the other accused in order to obtain pecuniaryadvantage for herself and others. Even if the television sets wereto be supplied before the General Election, fresh tenders could havebeen called for and the entire process would have been over within aperiod of thirty days. The public money has been completely misusedby the accused. The payment of money through the prosecutionwitnesses, 12, 14, 22, 27, 37, 58, 63 and 76 to A2 to A9 stoodestablished. As per section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, theaforesaid acts of A2 to A9 in obtaining the pecuniary advantageconsequent upon the approval made by the first accused is itself arelevant fact against the first accused to show that she was one ofthe conspirators. It is his further submission that it is notnecessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detailsof the conspiracy so long as they are co-conspirators of the mainobject of conspiracy. A1 categorically admitted during the course ofanswering the questionnaire under section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure that she did know about the objections of the FinanceDepartment. It is his further submission that the plea of good faithset up by the first accused would not be available for her as she hadacted without due care and attention. Therefore, he would submitthat A1, A2 and A4 to A9 are punishable for the offence of conspiracyhatched by them to squander the public money. 16. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first accused,second accused and the fourth accused to 9th accused would contendthat it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the decision forgoing in for purchasing the television sets for providing to all thevillages with fifty and more families in the State of Tamilnadu freeof cost was taken by the full Cabinet. The policy decision taken by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Cabinet is virtually under challenge in the criminal prosecution.There is no answer from the prosecuting agency as to why only a fewmembers in the Cabinet were singled out and prosecuted. Thedeclaration in the Independence Day Speech that colour televisionsets would be supplied to the villages at the cost of Rs.75 croreswould not imply that there had been a conspiracy to swallow thepublic money. There was a Television Approval Committee which wasformed wayback in the year 1989. The said Committee consists of PW4,who was the Commissioner of Town Panchayat, PW8, the Circle RangeOfficer, A4, Secretary of the Rural Development Department and A5,Director of Rural Development Department. Only after all thetelevision manufacturers numbering 197 as per the list collected fromthe Department of Industries and Commerce were invited to participatein the tender process, the deal was concluded. As there was a tusslebetween the Rural Development and the Finance Department relating tocertain issues, the first accused held a meeting with A2, A6, PW5 andPW7 and took a decision. The quantities were fixed based on thecapacity of the supplier. There was no meeting of minds establishedby the prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy allegedlyhatched by the accused. 17. Criminal thoughts generated in the mind of a person are notcrimes. The thoughts may take a concrete shape of an agreement to doan illegal act. Such an agreement is designated as criminalconspiracy. A bare agreement to do some illegal act would not amountto an offence of criminal conspiracy unless some act is done by oneor more parties to the agreement in pursuance thereof. The veryessence of the conspiracy is the fact of combination by agreement.The agreement need not always be express. It may also be implied.It may also be express in part and implied in part. It is not enoughthat two or more persons pursued the same unlawful object the sametime or in the same place. It is necessary to show a meeting ofminds, a consensus to effect an unlawful purpose. It is not,however, necessary that each conspirator should have been incommunication with every other. 18. Therefore, the court will have to decide whether there wasan integration of thought process which provided a shape of anagreement amongst accused 1, 2 and 4 to 9. It is the admitted case ofthe prosecution that the Full Cabinet chalked out a policy decisionto provide colour television sets to all the villages with fifty andmore families in the State of Tamil Nadu free of cost. Mr.Peter,PW10, who served as a Deputy Secretary, Rural Development wrote aD.O. Letter, Ex.P72 on 13.8.1995 to the fifth accused Sathyamurthy,the Director of Rural Development of the decision taken by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cabinet and the duty cast upon him to initiate further action in thatmatter. The proposal states that the said decision was taken with aview to strengthen the communication and information set up in therural areas.19. On 14.8.1995, PW10 wrote a letter, Ex.P73 to the FinanceDepartment informing them of the decision taken by the Cabinet thatall habitations with fifty families and above would be supplied withcolour television sets and all the black and white television setswhich were available would be replaced. 20. The first accused, being the Chief Minister, declared in theIndependence Day Speech on 15.8.1995 that colour television setswould be provided to village people free of cost by incurring a sumof Rs.75 crores. The Television Approval Committee which was formedin the year 1989 was directed to convene a meeting for the approvalof television sets and for the purchase of the same. Admittedly, theprice, the number of television sets and the suppliers had not beenidentified as on the date of such pronouncement in the IndependenceDay Speech by the Chief Minister. 21. The Television Approval Committee consisted of PW4, who wasthe Commissioner of Town Panchayat, PW8, the Circle Range Officer,A4, the Secretary of Rural Development Department and A5, theDirector of Rural Development. The fourth accused was the Chairman ofthe said Committee. The Director, Rural Development requested forsanction for purchase of television sets vide Ex.P38 dated 11.9.1995.The Department of Industries and Commerce on request, provided thelist of 174 television manufacturers in the entire country to theDirector of Rural Development. The Director of Rural Developmentcommunicated under Ex.P156 to the television manufacturers numbering197 and invited them to participate in the Tender. It is on recordthat the bids from Uptron and Videocon were received on 20.10.1995.The Television Approval Committee Meetings were held on 21st, 26th, 27th,29th and 31st October 1995. The Department of Rural Development put upa note under Ex.P28 seeking orders for the release of funds forpurchase of TV sets. Thereupon, the Finance Department raisedobjections with regard to the proposal on 16.11.1995 under Ex.P12.Those objections were answered by the Department of Rural Developmenton 23.11.1995 under Ex.P14. 22. The Chief Minister held a meeting with A2, A6, PW5 and PW7in order to expedite the process of supply of television sets to thevillage people. Two decisions were taken in the said meeting and theywere found a place in the note, Ex.P13 prepared by the Secretary, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Finance Department. The bidders submitted a letter of commitmentindicating their weekly capacity by 4th and 5th December 1995. Thequantities were fixed on the basis of the capacity of supplier. TheGovernment passed G.O.Ms.No.209 under Ex.P10 on 13.12.1995 for supplyof the television sets. 23. There is virtually no evidence let in on the side of theprosecution to establish that what was being quoted by the bidderswas higher than the market price. None of the witnesses has deposedthat the Television Approval Committee was influenced or exertedpressure by the accused to take a wrong decision. The prosecutionhas also not established that the television sets with certainspecial specifications sold to the Government were available at alower price in the open market. The Agents of the TelevisionManufacturers have not stated that the television sets have been soldto the Government at a rate higher than the market price. 24. The evidence of PW4 Machendranathan is found to be animprovised version compared to his statement, given by him to thepolice under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and alsohis statement given under section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure before the learned Judicial Magistrate. PW4 never made amention in his statements that before he attended the second meetingof the Television Approval Committee, he independently verified theprice of a television set with some of the dealers in Chennai. Hadhe actually verified the price of a television set from such sources,he would not have failed to mention it in the statement given to thepolice under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thestatement given before the learned Judicial Magistrate under section164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The above facts andcircumstances would clinchingly show that he has modulated hisversion before the court during the course of trial. 25. The investigating officer, on his part, has also failed tosecure the price list in currency during the relevant period fromsome of the Television Manufacturing Industries. No evidence wasforthcoming from the prosecuting agency that the price of aTelevision Set of the model ordered and purchased by the Governmentwas lower than Rs.14,500/=. PW5 would modestly admit that he didnot know what sort of special features were provided in thetelevision sets purchased by the Government. He is a novice as faras technical know-how of manufacture of television sets. It is hisadmission that he did not know the actual market price. Varadaraju,PW7 would depose that no such objection was raised by PW5 at themeeting that was held on 30.11.1995 at the camp office of the Chief https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Minister. 26. Let us now take up the allegation of the prosecution thatinstead of adopting the limited tender procedure, an open tenderprocedure was adopted. There is no dispute to the fact that thelimited tender procedure had been adopted on earlier occasions. Theassembly election was fast approaching. On account of the same, itappears the Chief Minister was bent upon to implement the scheme.Therefore, she convened a meeting at her camp office on 30.11.1995.PW5 did participate in the said meeting. She had given anopportunity of hearing the views of the Department of RuralDevelopment and the Department of Finance. There was an opendiscussion in the said meeting organised by the Chief Minister. Thedecision emerged in the said meeting was not shrouded in secrecy. Itis on evidence that 197 manufacturers of television sets from allover the country had been invited. Middlemen like Wholesalers andretailers were kept outside the deal. The Chief Minister had reasonedthat only the manufacturers could supply at the lowest rate. TheWholesalers and Retailers, who purchase only from the manufacturersand the Retailers, who purchase only from the Wholesalers cannotsupply at the lowest rate. Further, it was not the case that neverhad the Government adopted limited tender process. Further, theabove facts and circumstances had warranted the Government to adoptthe limited tender method. In fact, the invitation sent to all the197 manufacturers of television sets in India would indicate thatsuch a limited tender had the virtual trappings of open tender. 27. PW5 would candidly admit that as per the provision found inthe Financial Code, the limited tender system could be adopted incase of urgency. In fact Mr.Machendranathan, PW4 would agree to sucha view expressed by PW5. Mr.Ganapathy, PW8 would depose that therewas no snag in the procedure adopted as it was strictly in compliancewith the Government Order, Ex.P9. It is not out of place to mentionthat in the matter of purchase of 2000 television sets by the AdiDravidar Welfare Department, the open tender system was adopted butonly four companies purchased the tender forms, Ex.P7 and actuallytwo companies put in their tender out of which one Konark Televisionwas selected. Objection was not raised by the Finance Departmentthat the Government should not go in for a television set withsophisticated features. Firstly, it is found that the supply oftelevision sets with special sophisticated features was a policydecision taken by the Cabinet. PW5 had nothing to do with such apolicy decision. There is nothing on record to show that he, infact, raised such an objection at the meeting that was held on30.11.1995. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there had beenviolations of the provisions of the Financial Code or Violations ofCirculars and other instructions and also commission ofadministrative irregularities, such violations and irregularitieswould not constitute an offence, if they are not authored withdishonest intention by the officials. 29. The fact remains that no television set purchased by theCompany from the five suppliers and supplied to the villages wasseized during the police investigation. No technical evaluation ofany of the television sets was also done during the course ofinvestigation. Nor is there any evidence to show that any complaintswas received about the malfunctioning of those sets from any of thevillages.30. The prosecution would allege that the first and the secondaccused have acted against the advice of the Finance Secretary andalso against the public interest by approving the proposal to buycolour television sets and thereby they caused loss to theGovernment. The prosecution has miserably failed to substantiatesuch an allegation. The objections raised by the Finance Departmentwere suitably replied by the Department of Rural Development. In themeeting that was organized by the Chief Minister, all the pointsraised by the Finance Secretary were discussed threadbare. None ofthe points raised by the Financial Secretary was concealed to keep itoutside the interaction that took place openly in the meetingorganised by the Chief Minister. The decisions taken at the meetingwere thereafter carried out in their letter and spirit. 31. There is no shred of evidence to establish that there wasany meeting of mind culminating in an agreement amongst the accusedto show that they acted in unison against the public interest andcommitted breach of trust of the money belonged to the Government byindulging in criminal conspiracy. 32. Neither direct nor circumstantial evidence was produced toshow that A1 and A2 had a meeting of minds with any of the other co-accused individually or collectively in order to attract theprovision under section 10 of the Evidence Act. The prosecution hasto first satisfy that there is reasonable ground to believe that A1and A2 had conspired with any or all the accused to commit anoffence. Without establishing this fundamental criterion, theprosecution cannot invoke the provision of section 10 of the EvidenceAct. Of course, it is alleged by the prosecution that A7 obtained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pecuniary advantage for A2. But, the prosecution has not establishedby producing evidence that there was any meeting of minds between A2and A7. Such a story reeled out by the prosecution is found to bevery vague and unclear. Very strangely, the prosecution has come outwith a case that A7 collected money for A2 only from three companiesand collected money for himself from two other companies. Such astory is found to be completely unbelievable and is liable to berejected. 33. Conspiracy cannot be assumed from a set of unconnected factsor from a set of conduct exhibited by different accused persons atdifferent places and times without a reasonable link. It is a wellsettled proposition of law that suspicion, however strong, cannottake the place of legal proof. The mere circumstances that A1, beingthe Chief Minister, convened a special meeting to chalk out thedifferences between the Finance Department and the Rural DevelopmentDepartment, A2, being the Minister for Rural Development, stronglysupported the decision of the Cabinet to supply television sets torural areas and A7, being the Personal Assistant to A2, associatedwith him and A4 to A6, being the Heads of the relevant Department,executed the decision taken by Cabinet, would not lead to theinference that they had hatched a conspiracy to receive bribe forplacing orders for supply of television sets. The Trial Court hasrightly returned a verdict that the conspiracy theory putforth by theprosecution stood not established. No interference is called forwith the above merited decision of the Trial Court. 34. Let us now take up the charge as against the second accusedthat he misused his position as public servant and received bribefrom BPL colour television company, Videocon Company and UptronCompany. The prosecution placed reliance upon the testimony of PW32P.V.Nair, PW35 Krishnadevaraya, PW37 Balaji and PW58 Ravindran inorder to substantiate the allegation that the second accused receiveda sum of Rs.4,72,00,000/= as illegal monetary gain from BPL Company. 35. PW58 would state that PW32, PW35 and his brother Rajavelhappened to meet the second accused during the month of October 1995and made an appeal to the second accused to place orders for supplyof more number of television sets as BPL was a big televisionmanufacturing company. It is his further evidence that the secondaccused replied that he was not the deciding authority. The time fordelivery of television sets was very short as the Local Body Electionwas scheduled shortly. It is pertinent to note that PW58 Ravindrannever deposed either in the chief examination or in the crossexamination that A2 did make a demand for money from him for giving https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ orders for supply of colour television sets. 36. The court could notice material contradiction in thedeposition of those relevant witnesses examined with respect to themoney withdrawn and allegedly given to A7, K.Janardhanan, who was thePersonal Assistant to the Minister A2 T.M.Selvaganapathy. It is theversion of PW58 that the second accused gave a call to him pursuantto which PW58, PW32 and PW35, one Varghese and PW58's brother Rajavelmet the 7th accused. It is pertinent to note that the said Vargheseand Rajavel were not examined by the prosecution. PW58 would deposethat the 7th accused informed him that AIADMK party had proposed toconvene a conference at Trichy wherein free mass marriage for 5000pairs was contemplated and that therefore, the AIADMK party was indire need of adequate funds. Explaining thus the position, the 7thaccused informed PW58 to pay a sum of Rs.2500/= per television setand the officials of the BPL accepted such a demand. PW58 wouldcategorically depose before the court that he did not make astatement that A2 demanded money. He would state that PW32 P.V.Nair,PW35 Krishnadevaraya and other officials of BPL were very muchpresent when the amounts were withdrawn and handed over. It is hisaffirmative version that when the money was handed over to A7 onvarious occasions, the officials of BPL Company accompanied him. BPLCompany officials put the money in television paper box and handedover to the 7th accused. According to PW58, PW32 P.V.Nair and thesaid Varghese were present when the money was handed over to the 7thaccused. He would further state that the money was handed over to A7in front of Andhra Mahila Sabha Bus Stop and at the car park of theWoodlands Drive In Hotel. Such a story of PW58 was not corroboratedeither by PW32 or by PW35 . 37. PW32 P.V.Nair would depose that BPL officials met A2 andrequested for placing orders for larger supply of television sets.Never had he spoken to the disbursement of amount as stated by PW58to A7. PW32 distanced himself from the aforesaid incriminatingcircumstances spoken to by PW58. PW32 was very categoric that BPLCompany never authorised anybody to pay any illegal gratification.PW35, on his part, would depose that when the officials met thesecond accused, the officials only asked for placing orders forincreased supply of television sets. PW35 Krishnadevaraja also doesnot speak about the disbursement of money in his presence, despitethe fact that PW58 chose to state before the court that PW35 also waspresent most of the time when the disbursement was made. PW37 Balajiwould come out with a different version that the amount was paid toA7 in three or four instalments. Such a stand of PW37 is found to bequite contrary to the evidence of PW58 who would state that payments https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were made on nine occasions. 38. Very strangely, PW37 Balaji does not speak about thepresence of PW2 and PW35 when the amount was allegedly disbursed bythe 7th accused. Such a stand of PW37 would distance him from theaffirmative version of PW35 that PW32, PW35 and PW37 were present atthe time when the amount was paid. It is to be noted at thisjuncture that PW38 never stated that PW37 Balaji was present whenmoney was paid. Though PW37 would assert that he was present whenthe money was handed over to A7 on certain occasions, during thecourse of cross-examination by A8, PW58 would honestly admit that hehad nothing to do with the money disbursed to the political leadersand Government officials and all those matters were dealt with onlyby the BPL officials. Thus, the testimony of PW58 is materiallycontradicted by the evidence of PW32 P.V.Nair, PW35 Krishnadevarayaand PW37 Balaji. The aforesaid contradictions strike at the root ofthe version of PW58 as to how the money was withdrawn and allegedlyhanded over to the 7th accused. PW58 would depose before the courtthat the money was demanded by the 7th accused when the officials methim in a Hotel. Such a demand made by the 7th accused did not find aplace either in the statement of PW58 recorded by the investigatingofficer under section 161 or in the statement Ex.P333 recorded by thelearned Judicial Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure . 39. PW58 speaks to the presence of the officials of BPL on alloccasions when the money was handed over to the 7th accused. On twooccasions, the currencies kept in boxes were handed over to the 7thaccused in a bus stop near the Andhra Mahila Sabha Building. On therest of the occasions, it was in the campus of the Woodlands Drive InRestaurant, he would depose before the court. The investigatingofficer, PW80 would state before the court that PW58 did not revealbefore him during the course of investigation that A7 was met by theBPL officials either at the bus stop near Andhra Mahila SabhaBuilding or at the campus of the Woodlands Drive In Restaurant.Further, such a version also did not find a place in the statement,Ex.P333 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate under section 161of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The above facts and circumstanceswould establish that PW58 has come out with a modulation before thecourt at his will and pleasure. 40. It is the version of PW58 that he acted as an agent of BPLwith the help of PW35 Krishna Devaraya. Ex.P165 is the letter shotoff by him to BPL on 16.8.1995 seeking to appoint him as a liaisonagent to secure orders from the Government of Tamilnadu for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ distribution of colour television sets. Under Ex.P166, he wasappointed as an agent of BPL on 8.9.1995. PW58 was entitled tocommission of 24% i.e., Rs.3600/= if the price fixed by theGovernment was at Rs.15,000/=. His commission would beproportionately reduced if the price fixed by the Government wasbelow Rs.15,000/= per set. His appointment as agent of BPL precededthe meeting of the Television Approval Committee that was held forthe first time on 21.10.1995. The tender documents were presented tothe Television Approval committee only in the month of October. Theagreement entered into by PW58 with BPL categorically stipulated theprice of the television set and the commission to be paid long priorto the presentation of the tender documents. In the above facts andcircumstances, it is quite unbelievable that PW58 met A2 and A7 forthe purpose of fixing the amount to be given to them. During thecourse of chief examination, he would state that he was to get acommission of Rs.200/= per television set from BPL Company. PW58improved his version by stating that letters dated 16.8.1995 and8.9.1995 were ante-dated so as to increase the amount of commission.Such a stand of PW58 was contradicted by PW34 Bhatia, the SalesDirector of BPL, who would state that he had not given any letter byputting ante-date. The above circumstances would show that PW58 hadante-dated the letters only to make it believe that he had highercommission margin meant for payment to higher officials.41. The Trial Court has completely ignored the fact that PW32,PW35, PW37 and PW58 are accomplices, whose evidence will have to bevery cautiously approached with. Unless independent evidence isthere to corroborate the evidence of the accomplices, it is totallyunsafe to record conviction based on the sole testimony of theaccomplices. Further, the aforesaid material contradictions found inthe evidence of PW32, PW35, PW37 and PW58 cast a cloud on the versionof the prosecution that these witnesses paid money to A2 through A7. 42. The close scrutiny of the depositions of PW38 to PW49 cast aserious doubt about the withdrawal of the amount from the bank forpayment. Many of those witnesses have deposed that they saw thebills produced before the court for the first time. PW44, PW46, PW47and PW51 would categorically depose that their signatures do nottally. Some of the witnesses would state that their signatures havebeen forged. Some of those witnesses have stated that it was onlyPW37 Balaji, who filled up blank papers. 43. The prosecution case is that money was drawn from the bankaccounts of the agents appointed by the Company and was given to A7.Though the material witnesses have spoken to the fact that money was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ withdrawn from the bank, the payment alleged to have been made byPW37, PW58 and other accomplices including BPL officials was notestablished. PW58 would depose that he did not want to withdraw theentire amount in his name as it would attract huge income tax. Sucha version of PW58 cast a cloud on the version of the prosecution thatthe amount was drawn and paid to A7. Therefore, the entire story ofthe prosecution that the amount was withdrawn and paid to A7 is foundto be totally unbelievable. A combined reading of the depositions ofPW32, PW35, PW37 and PW58 would unerringly indicate that theirtestimony is not only contradictory but also striking at the root ofthe version of one another. We can safely draw an inference that theconduct of those witnesses including the BPL officials and excludingPW34 that their conduct was not aboveboard. PW58, in fact, did notfall in line with the case of the prosecution. He was treated ashostile. In fact, PW58, on whom the prosecution heavily relies upon,has spoken to before the court quite contradictory to his statementunder section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure . It is to benoted that PW32 and PW34 have not deposed anything about the paymentmade to A2 or to A7. PW35 has come out with a hearsay evidence thatmoney was given to A7 inasmuch as he was not present when the allegedmeeting took place between A7 and PW58. 44. Let us now take up the charge against A2 that he obtained asum of Rs.1,41,72,000/= as bribe from Videocon Company. Theprosecution heavily banks on the evidence of PW27 Jayaraj. The courtwill have to closely scrutinize his evidence to test his veracity soas to take a decision whether his testimony can be safely reliedupon. 45. In SHARNAPPA MUTYAPPA HALKE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ((1964)4 SCR 589), the Supreme Court has held as follows:-"Where a person has made two contradictorystatements on oath it is plainly unsafe to relyimplicitly on his evidence. In other words, beforeone decides to accept the evidence brought in underSection 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure astrue and reliable one has to be satisfied that thisis really so. How can that satisfaction be reached? In most cases this satisfaction can come onlyif there is such support in extrinsic evidence as togive a reasonable indication that not only what issaid about the occurrence in general but also whatis said against the particular accused sought to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ implicated in the crime is true."46. In his statement under section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure marked as Ex.D13 to D16, PW27 has stated that the entireamount was given to A2 in person. But, in the cross-examination, hecandidly deposes that the statement that he gave money to A2 inperson is totally wrong. In the witness box, he would depose that onno occasion, money was given directly to A2 and that every paymentwas made only to A7. It is to be noted that such a version of PW27is a totally new one which is quite contrary to what has been statedin his statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedureat the earliest point of time. 47. PW27 would depose that on 21.10.1995, he learnt that therewas a Television Purchase Committee. He and Rajaguru attended thesaid meeting. He would further depose that the Television PurchaseCommittee Meeting was organised at Secretariat on 26.10.1995.Rajaguru and himself attended that meeting. He would further deposethat they met A4 on the same night in the Government Guest House andafter a few days, the Television Purchase Committee Meeting wasconvened in the office of A5. PW4 Machendranathan asked him to giveit in writing on 26.10.1995 that they were prepared to supplytelevision sets for Rs.12,500/= per set if they got the entire order.It is his further version that on the very same day, they tried tomeet A4 but, failed in their attempt. On the next day, Rajaguru andhimself met Raja and Ravi and they took them to Duraisamy A8. Hewould further depose that A8 informed them that an order for supplyof 1000 colour television sets for them was ready. Immediately, theyrushed to Government Estate, Chepauk, but, A4 was not availablethere. Therefore, they sent fax message that if they failed to getorders for supply of television sets, they would approach the courtand get remedy. After worshipping God in Vadapalani Temple, theysent fax message to Finance Secretary and Chief Secretary. He wouldfurther depose that on the next day, they met A4, who informed themthat A2 was the authority to take a final decision and asked them tomeet the Minister. The 7th accused Janardhanan arranged to meet thesecond accused at 11.00 pm. The Minister was in an angry mood whenthey met him. He, in fact, repeated the fax message sent by them. 48. From the above testimony of PW27, it is quite clear that on28.10.1995, PW27 met A2, but, Ex.P161 which is the fax message sentto A2 would show that it was sent only on 30.10.1995. PW27 had comeout with a big lie that the Minister got angry with PW27 on28.10.1995 itself when he happened to meet him even before thethreatening fax message was sent on 30.10.1995. The above facts and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances would clinchingly indicate that the alleged meeting ofPW27 Rajaguru with A2 wherein there was an interaction about theillegal gratification is totally false. 49. Yet another circumstance detailed below would completelyfalsify the case projected by PW27. Ex.P10 complaint before theNational Consumer Redressal Commission was lodged by oneM.Dhakshinamurthy, the sole proprietor of Vasantham Electronics andRewinders and the same was taken on file in O.P.No.293 of 1997 by theCommission. It has been alleged therein that Vasantham Electronicsand Rewinders were the authorised agents for the purchase of VideoconColour Television Sets by the State of Tamil Nadu. It is furtheralleged in the complaint that PWP27 Jayaraj was the Branch Manager ofCanara Bank, Nadupalayam Branch, Erode District and Rajaguru, who isthe brother of PW27, was also a Branch Manager of Indian OverseasBank, Pudhukottai. They approached the complainant M.Dhakshinamurthyand offered to help him in the venture. It is further alleged thatafter the supply of Television sets, when the complainant approachedthe Government for getting the legitimate dues, they came tounderstand that PW27 Jayaraj and his brother Rajaguru had alreadywithdrawn many payments of cheque in the name of Jayaraj andRajaguru, Vasantham Electronics and Rewinders.50. It is very important to note the stand taken by PW27 in thecounter, Ex.D11 filed by him before the National Consumers DisputesRedressal Commission. It has been alleged therein that PW27 and hisbrother Rajaguru were the authorised agents for Videocon and they hadjust borrowed the name of Vasantham Electronics and Rewinders. Ithas been categorically alleged therein that they had paidRs.5,00,000/= to Mr.Sambantham, who represented Dhakshinamurthy underthe cheque which is found in Ex.D12 series. The photocopy of thecheque was also annexed to the counter filed by PW27 before theNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said chequebearing serial number 021260 dated 29.1.1996 in the name ofSambantham was drawn on State Bank of India, North Thyagaraya Nagar. 51. PW27 has deposed before the court that the cheque was notactually payable to Dhakshinamurthy though it was mentioned that thecheque for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/= was payable to Dhakshinamurthy. Hedenies the suggestion that the cheque No.021260 was payable only toSambantham and not to the Minister. Before the Consumer Forum, hestates that the said cheque was issued to pay Dhakshinamurthy whereasbefore the Trial Court, during the course of cross-examination, hedeposes that the proceeds of the said cheque were given to theMinister. The above contradiction is sufficient to disregard the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence of PW27. 52. PW27 would categorically state that the cheques were issuednot only in the name of PW27 but also in the name of Rajaguru. Whenthe cheques had been issued in the name of Rajaguru and monies werewithdrawn from that account also, the prosecution should haveexamined Rajaguru. A whopping sum of Rs.59,40,000/= was withdrawnfrom Rajaguru's account. No explanation is forthcoming from theprosecuting agency as to why the said Rajaguru, who is none otherthan the brother of PW27 was not examined before the court. Rajaguruis found to be a material witness whose non-examination deals a blowto the case of the prosecution. Further, the uncorroborated soleversion of PW27, who is also found to be an accomplice, coming outwith contradictory versions, cannot at all be accepted by the court. 53. The cheques used for drawing money by PW27 and Rajaguru werenot produced by the prosecution. Therefore, the entire story of theprosecution projected through PW27 that monies were withdrawn andpaid to A7 is found not acceptable. 54. PW27, during the course of chief-examination would statethat he was a sales representative of Videocon. But, during thecourse of cross-examination, he would state that he informed theinvestigating officer that he was a Wholesale Dealer. Further downin the cross-examination, he says that he was an institutional salesrepresentative of Videocon. He further changes his version and comesout with yet another version that he was a Franchisee of VasanthamElectronics and Rewinders. 55. To top it all, it is found that PW27, the star witness inthis case, as regards the alleged transaction of Videocon TelevisionCompany was charge-sheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation andhe is facing a criminal trial in C.C.No.28 of 1996 under section 120Bread with sections 419, 420, 467, 458 and 471 of the Indian PenalCode and section 13(2) read with section 13(i)(d) of the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1988. A copy of the charge sheet was produced onthe side of the defence and the same was marked as Ex.D18. There isno denial that the said case is still pending trial before theSpecial Court for CBI Cases at Coimbatore. 56. In RAM DAS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ((2007 2 SCC 170) it hasbeen observed, "We have no doubt that PW5 is a thoroughlydiscredited witness and cannot be relied upon. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appears to be a wholly untruthful witness and wasintroduced by the prosecution only to buttress thecase of the prosecution. We, therefore, reject hisevidence outright."57. In JAGJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB ((2005) 3 SCC 689), ithas been observed, "We are convinced that this witness is not worthyof belief and stands thoroughly discredited in hiscross-examination. His assertions furtherdemonstrate that he has no regard for truth. Hewent to the extent of claiming that he was aresident of Village Khamanon Kamli whereas thecase of the prosecution is that he is a residentof Village Madera and the evidence of Billo, PW6on this aspect is very categorical. We must,therefore, discard the evidence of Bashir, PW4."58. It is a settled position of law that the evidence of athoroughly discredited witness cannot at all be relied upon to recordconviction. In STATE OF UTTARPRADESH v. FARID KHAN ((2005) 9 SCC103), the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "Of course, the evidence of a witness, who has gota criminal background, is to be viewed withcaution. But, if such an evidence gets sufficientcorroboration from the evidence of other witnesses,there is nothing wrong in accepting such evidence."59. Apart from PW27, there is no witness to substantiate thecharge that A7 received bribe from the representative of the VideoconTelevision Company. The evidence of the person having a criminalbackground unless and until substantiated by other witnesses cannotbe banked upon by the court. 60. There is no corroboration received to support the evidenceof PW27 who was an accomplice. The conviction for the alleged bribereceived from the officials of the Videocon as against A2 and A7cannot be sustained solely based on the evidence of the taintedwitness, PW27. The Trial Court has completely ignored the abovefacts and circumstances and has completely relied upon thediscredited and tainted witness of PW27 to convict A2 and A7 withrespect to the aforesaid charge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

61. The other charge as against A2 is that A2, by misusing hisofficial position, received a sum of Rs.47,00,000/= from UptronCompany. The prosecution has chosen to examine PW12 Ganesh Khannaand PW14 P.Sivasankaran and PW15 Shanmugam in order to establish theabove charge. 62. PW12 Ganesh Khanna has deposed before the court that he metA2 at his residence and made a request to purchase his colourtelevision sets as the buyers as well as sellers are the Government.It is his further version that A2 informed him that he would lookinto the matter. Thereafter, PW14 P.Sivasankaran, PW15 Shanmugam andhimself left the house of A2. They also met A7 who was the PersonalAssistant to the Minister. A7 demanded Rs.1000/= per set. It is tobe noted that PW12 does not say that A2 ever demanded money fromUptron Company. 63. PW14 Sivasankaran would state that the second accusedSelvaganapathy asked him and other officials of Uptron Company as tohow many television sets could be supplied by them in a month. Hewarned that orders for supply of colour television sets would beplaced with other Companies if his Company failed to supply in time.He has further stated that Ganesh Khanna, PW12 informed him that A7Janardhanan contacted him through phone and asked him to meet A7and thereafter, himself, Chandrakumar and PW12 proceeded to theresidence of A2. When they entered into the residence of A2, A7Janardhanam emerged from the house of A2 and asked them to pay a sumof Rs.1000/= per set and PW12 accepted it. Thereafter, they issueduncrossed cheques in the name of Balasubramanian on behalf of theirCompany. They have also obtained signatures of Balasubramanian in thevouchers for disbursement of the cheque. Firstly, they gave a chequefor Rs.6,00,000/= payable to A7. The said amount was withdrawn asthe cheque was drawn payable to "Ourselves". As A7 contactedChandrakumar over phone and made a request that the amount due to himcould be paid immediately, they encashed the cheque by drawing thecheque payable to "Ourselves", it is deposed further by PW14Sivasankaran. Neither PW12 nor PW14 ever stated that A2 demanded anymoney for placing orders with their Company for supply of televisionsets. It is to be noted that PW14 and PW15 forged the signature ofBalasubramanian who was held up in Tirunelveli to withdraw themoney. Therefore, in the above background, the evidence of PW14 isfound not trustworthy. 64. PW14 would further depose that Chandrakumar, Shanmugam, PW15and himself proceeded in an autorickshaw to an old hideout adjacent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to the residence of A2 and handed over Rs.6,00,000/= to A7Janardhanam. It is to be noted that Balasubramanian was notavailable since he was held up in Tirunelveli as per the earlierversion of PW14. It is very difficult to believe thatBalasubramanian, who was at Tirunelveli when the money was drawnfrom the bank descended on the City of Chennai for the purpose ofdelivering money to A7 immediately after withdrawing the amount fromthe bank. 65. PW15 Shanmugam would depose that Sivasankaran, Chandrakumar,Balasubramanian and himself carried the amount through anautorickshaw and alighted at the bus stop at Sathya Studio. Theywent into the residence of the Minister Selvaganapathy.Balasubramanian and himself stood outside. PW1 Sivasankaran andChandrakumar went inside the residence of A2 with cash. Later on,they came out and informed them that they handed over cash to A7Janardhanan. The place where the money was paid does not findcorroboration. PW14 and PW15 have come out with contradictoryversion with respect to the place where the money was paid. Itthrows doubt on the veracity of the testimony of PW14 and PW15. Totop it all, PW14 would depose that he did not have any direct contactwith A2. Nor had he asked money from the company people. Thecompany people also did not pay any amount to him. Therefore, thealleged payment to A2 through A7 spoken to by PW14 and PW15, theaccomplices in the crime, does not inspire confidence more especiallywhen there is no corroboration from independent sources. 66. PW15 would state that an agreement was entered into betweenUptron Company and himself on 5.2.1996. Uptron Company issued chequein the name of Selaippan, Shanmugam, Balasubramanian and Janardhanan.The said cheque was signed by Ganesh Khanna who was examined as PW12.During the course of cross-examination, PW15 would admit that heinterpolated the agreement as though the agreement came into force onand from 18.1.1996. It is his version that before he put hissignature in the agreement, PW12 had signed Ex.P79. He cancelled thetyped portion of the date and wrote in pen that the said agreementcame into force with effect from 18.1.1996. It is very pertinent tonote that the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.6,00,000/= was made on24.1.1996 itself even before the agreement was signed. Only to coverup the date of first payment on 24.1.1996, PW15 himself had ante-dated the agreement from 5.2.1996 to 18.1.1996. 67. PW12 Ganesh Khanna would state that originally the date ofthe agreement was written as 5.2.1996 and thereafter it was correctedas 18.1.1996. But, he signed the agreement, Ex.P79 only on 5.2.1996. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The evidence of PW12 would go to show that the top official of UptronCompany had entered into the said agreement only on 5.2.1996. As themoney was drawn on 24.1.1996 long before the agreement was signed bythe top officials of the Uptron Company, the court genuinelyentertains a doubt as to the alleged payment of money through A7 onwithdrawal of Rs.6,00,000/=. 68. PW15, in his cross-examination, would state that the firstpayment of Rs.6,00,000/= was made on 24.1.1996. That cheque, Ex.P82was deposited into bank and was encashed and disbursed on the sameday. PW13 accompanied him and other officials on one occasion whenthey handed over the money. The aforesaid version of PW15 iscompletely contradicted by PW13 S.K.Khanna. S.K.Khanna wouldcategorically state that he came to the Madras Branch Office only inthe first week of February 1996 for preparing balance sheet andduring that visit, Ganesh Khanna, PW12 instructed him to accompanySivasankaran and Chandrakumar to meet the Personal Assistant to theMinister with Shanmugam to give money in cash but, he did not goalongwith them. Sivasankaran and Chandrakumar only told him thatthey gave money to the Personal Assistant to the Minister.Therefore, the version of PW15 that S.K.Khanna, PW13 accompanied himfor making payment is found to be totally false as it is notcorroborated by PW13. PW13 has gone a step further and deposed thathe has never seen the Personal Assistant to the Minister and he alsodid not witness any payment of money to any person. PW15 is awitness who cannot be safely relied on to establish the case of theprosecution that payment of money was made to A7 because his versionregarding the persons who were present at the time of withdrawal ofthe money and the place where the money was given do not tally withthe evidence of other witnesses. 69. PW15 would state that PW13 S.K.Khanna accompanied theofficials of Uptron when they went to make a payment to A7. That wascompletely contradicted by PW13 who would state that he came down toMadras Branch Office only during the first week of February 1996 atthe time when the agreement was prepared. PW13 to PW15 prominentlyreferred to the role of Chandrakumar, but, quite unfortunately thesaid Chandrakumar was not examined by the prosecuting agency. It isfound that the depositions of PW13 to PW15 are contradictory witheach other and are at complete variance. In such circumstances, thenon-examination of Chandrakumar looms large. It is to be furthernoted that none of the witnesses viz., P.Ws.12, 13, 14 and 15 evermentioned that A2 demanded money or that A7 took money on behalf ofA2. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

70. When there is virtually no reliable and trustworthy evidenceforthcoming from the side of the prosecution, it is found that theTrial Court has simply adverted to the chief examination portion ofthe witnesses referred to above and has arrived at a conclusion thatA2 misused his position as public servant and received bribe fromBPL Colour Television Company, Videocon Company and Uptron Company. 71. Now, let us take up the charge framed against the 7th accusedwho was the Personal Assistant of the second accused. The charge isthat he being a public servant, abused his official position andobtained himself pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.28,56,000/=from Keltron Company which supplied 2856 television sets to theGovernment of Tamilnadu. A7, being a Personal Assistant to theMinister A2, had no role in the decision making process undertakenand completed in connection with the supply of television sets to thevillages. There is virtually no evidence even to infer distantlythat A7 had a role in fixing the price of the television setspurchased by the Government nor had he played a role in the allotmentof quantities to various suppliers from whom the television sets wereultimately purchased. He had also not played any role in the mannerof selecting any particular supplier firm. No one also has spoken tothe fact that he exercised certain amount of influence to select aparticular company for supplying the television sets. 72. The prosecution has examined PW22 to PW26 and PW28 in orderto establish the aforesaid charges framed against A7. PW22V.K.K.Dasan and PW26 V.N.Ramachandran, Branch Manager of ChennaiBranch, Keltron would state that Keltron owed PW22 Dasan a sum ofRs.50,00,000/= and odd long prior to November 1995 and that PW22 hadbeen demanding it from the Company. But, quite surprisingly, PW23Balan Nambiar feigned ignorance of such liability of Keltron Company.PW22 V.K.K.Dasan was appointed as agent by PW23 Balan Nambiar forKeltron Company. PW37 would state that the Company, in fact agreedto pay Rs.1900/= per set as commission to PW22. That was the normaldiscount paid to any distributor by their company, he has statedbefore the court. Therefore, no special favour was shown to PW22 asper the evidence of PW23. 73. PW23 Balan Nambiar would depose before the court that whenhe met the second accused and the seventh accused in connection withthe television set supply transaction, no one demanded any money. Hehis very emphatic that A7 did not demand Rs.1000/= per set either forhimself or for any other person. PW22 Dasan would state that he wasintroduced to A7 by PW23, but, PW23 seriously disputes such a versionof PW22. Therefore, the evidence of PW22 stands uncorroborated on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this aspect. 74. PW23 Balan Nambiar has come out with a version for the firsttime during the course of trial that when he first met the secondaccused, the latter enquired with him if the Company had proposed tosupply television sets directly or through agents and that when PW23informed him that the supply would be met only through agents, the 7thaccused expressed his desire to meet the agent. PW80, the DeputySuperintendent of Police, who examined PW23, during the course ofinvestigation would state that the aforesaid version was notdisclosed to him. 75. PW23 Balan Nambiar would also state that A7 fixed theappointment to meet the second accused to effectively make hisrepresentation on behalf of his Company. PW80, Deputy Superintendentof Police contradicts such a version given during the course ofinvestigation. Therefore, this version also is found to be animproved one. In the face of such contradictions, his testimonycannot be accepted without corroboration. 76. PW22 Dasan has deposed that on three different occasionsviz., the second week of February, last week of February and thirdweek of March 1996, he paid Rs.17,00,000/=, Rs.3,00,000/= andRs.8,56,000/= respectively to the 7th accused. It is his furtherevidence that on each one of those three occasions, PW23 BalanNambiar accompanied him, but, unfortunately, PW23 Balan Nambiardistanced himself during the course of evidence from such a versionthat he did accompany PW22 on those three occasions to the house ofA7 for handing over the money. 77. PW22 Dasan would further depose that on each occasion heproceeded to meet the second accused to pay him bribe, he first metthe security guard standing outside the main gate and through thesecurity guard, he sent for the 7th accused and the security guardwent inside the house of the second accused and brought the 7thaccused who met PW22 outside the main gate. Firstly, the securityguard, the independent witness to the transaction and not anaccomplice was not examined by the investigating agency. Secondly,the Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW80 would state that theaforesaid versions were not spoken to by PW22 during the course ofinvestigation. Further, his statement appears to be highly artificialand improbable. PW23 Balan Nambiar was treated as hostile. PW23resiles from his version before the investigating officer that heaccompanied PW22. Even assuming for the sake of argument that PW23did accompany PW22 to the house of A2 to meet A7 for making payment https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to him, there was no reason for PW23 to stay back in the car leavingPW22 to proceed to the main gate for making payment to A7. He wouldnot have seated in the car itself had he accompanied PW22 upto themain gate of the Minister's house. 78. PW22 would depose that Keltron owed him a sum ofRs.50,00,000/=. He was in financial distress as his businesssuffered a setback. Therefore, he agreed to act as agent in thetransaction with the fond hope that he could collect his dues.Admittedly, he was paid only a sum of Rs.51,00,000/=. The Governmenthad retained a sum of Rs.3,26,400/= from out of total considerationof Rs.54,26,400/= payable to him as per the agreement. PW22 woulddepose that the said sum of Rs.3,26,400/= was retained by theGovernment to meet the expenses incurred on the officers of theGovernment. Such a version is quite against his version before theinvestigating officer that the said sum was retained for the purposeof spending on transport to deliver the television sets at thescheduled destination points. All these contradictory versions wouldlead to an inference that PW22 was not speaking the truth before thecourt. 79. It is on record that Keltron Company obtained a letter fromPW22 Dasan that there was no dues remaining unpaid to him only inthe month of September/October 1996 after the police investigationhad commenced in this case. It is really a salient point to showthat all was not well with the conduct of the officials of theKeltron Company. There was no explanation from Keltron Company forobtaining no due letter from PW22 Dasan in a hurry after the policeinvestigation in this case had commenced. 80. PW22 Dasan had categorically stated that there were books ofaccounts maintained by him relating to the transport charges, etcborne by him. During the course of cross-examination, PW22 wouldstate that he did not in fact show the books to the police. But,when he was cross-examined by the 5th accused, he would state that he,in fact, showed the books of accounts to the investigating officerand the latter seized the same. There is no material to show thatthose materials were seized and produced before the court. In viewof the above facts and circumstances, the court finds that the TrialCourt has simply ignored the self-contradictory and inter-contradictory versions of PW22 while returning a verdict that A7abused his position as public servant and obtained pecuniaryadvantage from Keltron Company. The court comes to the definiteconclusion that it would be totally unsafe to accept and act upon theuncorroborated testimony of PW22 who was one of the collaborators and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accomplices in the transaction. 81. Let us now take up the charge as against the 7th accused thathe abused his position as a public servant and obtained pecuniaryadvantage to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/= for himself from PW63Vaikuntam in connection with the supply of 4700 colour televisionsets by Solidaire Company. The prosecution has chosen to come toexamine PW62 Ramaniprasad, PW63 Vaikuntam, PW64 Sundaresan in orderto substantiate the aforesaid charge. PW64 Mr.Sundaresan was theBranch Manager of the Bank. Therefore, the evidence of PW62Ramaniprasad and PW63 Vaikuntam will have to be thoroughly andcritically analysed by this court. 82. PW63 Vaikuntam was working as Security Officer in SolidaireCompany. He claims that he was also appointed as agent on commissionbasis for procuring orders for the very same Solidaire Company. Hewould depose that a letter appointing him as an agent by the Companywas handed over to the police during the course of investigation.But, surprisingly, the said letter of appointment as agent was notproduced before the court. Such a grave omission on the part of theinvestigating official cast a doubt on the very claim of PW63Vikuntam that he was appointed as agent by Solidaire Company and he,in fact, acted as agent to clinch a deal.83. PW62 Ramaniprasad would depose that PW63 Vaikuntam wasappointed as Liaison Agent and a letter to that effect was alsoissued to him. Such a letter also was not produced before the courtby the investigating agency. It is to be borne in mind that PW63Ramaniprasad has not come out with a version that he was appointed asLiaison Agent before the investigating officer, PW80. The court willhave to primarily determine whether money was available with PW63Vaikuntam for making payment to the 7th accused. Firstly, except thesole version of PW63 that he received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/= and oddfrom Solidaire Company, there is no other witness to corroborate hisversion. Even PW62 has not deposed that money was ever paid to PW63as commission or under any other category in connection with the saleof television sets to the Government. 84. In all fairness, the investigating agency should haveproduced the books of accounts maintained by Solidaire Company toestablish the fact that PW63 was paid with commission money moreespecially when the order of appointment as commission agent orLiaison Agent was not produced. It is quite unbelievable that theSolidaire Company of this stature, chose to take vouchers from PW63for making payment of commission in lakhs to him. Further, PW63 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would come out with a revelation that no vouchers have been obtainedfrom him. He would further depose that he did not maintain anyaccounts except some scribbling on a piece of paper. Even ifSolidaire Company had transacted such payment of commission throughvoucher, the books of accounts and other records maintained by theSolidaire Company, relating to payment of Rs.10,00,000/= and odd toPW63 would reflect it. Quite unfortunately, no such record fromSolidaire Company was produced to establish the aforesaid aspect.When no authentic evidence is forthcoming from the Solidaire Companywith respect to payment of commission made to PW63, the court is notinclined to accept the story reeled out by PW63 before this court. 85. PW63 Vaikuntam is a retired police officer. The evidence onrecord would show that he had served as Inspector in the CBCID Wingof the Government. The present case has been launched by CBCID asagainst these accused. Therefore, there is every reason to believethat PW63 Vaikuntam, the erstwhile official of CBCID Wing hadobliged them. 86. PW62 has clearly stated before the court that the specialmodel of Solidaire Company Television was sold at Rs.14,900/= in theopen market. Solidaire Company had quoted the price at Rs.14,800/=in the tender form. It appears that after negotiation, the price wasreduced to Rs.14,500/= per set. Therefore, the Solidaire Companycould not have thought of selling the colour television sets withspecial features below the price of Rs.14,500/=. 87. On the aspects of the demands and acceptance made by the 7thaccused, the evidence of PW63 Vaikuntam sounds most incredible. Ifreally there had been such a demand from A7, one would expect PW63 todisclose it to PW62 or any other official connected with theSolidaire Company. But, PW62 has observed stoic silence and he, infact, does not corroborate the aforesaid version of PW63. The demandis said to have been made at the residence of A2. PW62 does not saythat he ever visited the residence of A2. This again falsifies theevidence of PW63 that he had gone to the residence of A2 alongwithPW62. To top it all, PW62 has never stated that PW63 accompanied himto any place in connection with this transaction. We have alreadypointed out that PW63 has come out with a version that he first metthe security guard on duty when he proceeded to make payment to the7th accused and through the security guard, he sent for the 7thaccused. It is found to be an improvement he has made over hisstatement to the investigating official. He has also not made anymention with respect thereto in his statement Ex.P371 recorded undersection 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. PW63 would further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ state that in the month of February 1996, he received a phone callfrom the 7th accused and responding to such a call, he proceeded tothe house of A2 and paid money to A7. But, in the statement, Ex.P371given under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he hasstated that such a transaction took place only in the month ofJanuary and not in the month of February. The Trial Court hasrightly made an observation that no person would have paid any moneyto A7 all for himself as he was only a Junior Personal Assistant tothe Minister, A2. But, the Trial Court infers that such money meantto be paid to A2 could have been given to A7 and A7 would havereceived the same. Firstly, it is not the prosecution case. Specificcharges have been framed against A7 on the ground that such sums werepaid only for the 7th accused. The court cannot build up a case ofits own taking a marked departure from the crystallised stand of theparties. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the courtfinds that the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the 7thaccused misusing his official position as public servant obtainedpecuniary advantage for himself from PW63 Vaikuntam. 88. Let us now take up the charge that in pursuance of thecriminal conspiracy, A7 obtained Rs.6,60,72,000/= as pecuniaryadvantage for the second accused. The criminal conspiracy theoryputforth by the prosecution was also disbelieved by this court. Theprosecution must first explain the sums of money covered by thisfigure viz., Rs.6,60,72,000/=. Secondly, it is their duty toestablish that there was a specific demand personally made by thesecond accused with any specific individual or individuals. Thirdly,it should be established that the said sums were paid into the handsof the 7th accused as per the instruction passed on by the secondaccused to the givers of the said sums. 89. There is no evidence on record to establish the nexus thesecond accused had with the alleged episode of receiving money meantfor the second accused by the 7th accused. There is also no materialto show that the money alleged to have been paid to the 7th accused byboth Keltron and Solidaire Companies was meant for the secondaccused. It is to be remembered that the aforesaid chargespecifically relates to the alleged payments made to the secondaccused having been received by the 7th accused as per the specificinstructions given personally by the second accused to each one ofthe persons who agreed to pay amounts on behalf of the Company. Theprosecution, in its attempt to prove and establish that the secondaccused demanded and agreed to accept money from each one of thesupplier firms viz., Uptron, Videocon and BPL, has examined P.Ws.2 to21 relating to Uptron Television Company, PW27 and PW29 to PW31 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relating to Videocon Television Company and P.Ws.32 to 61 relating toBPL Television Company. 90. PW12 Ganesh Khanna does not say that the second accused madeany demand for money but he has come forward with a totally newversion that the 7th accused demanded a sum of Rs.1000/= per set forhimself. Such a version does not find a place in his statementbefore PW80, the investigating officer in this case. Further, it isalso not the case of the prosecution. He would further depose thatthe decision to sell television sets at Rs.14,500/= per set was takenby the Head Office at Lucknow and that he had nothing to do with thesaid decision making process. It is also not his case that hewitnessed the payments made to the 7th accused. It is not thespecific version of PW12 that the money that was agreed to be paid tothe 7th accused was meant only for the second accused. Therefore, theevidence of PW12 is not at all helpful to establish the aforesaidcharge as against the 7th accused. 91. PW13 S.K.Khanna has not deposed that the second accused madea demand for money or accepted it. It is also not his case that hewitnessed the 7th accused making a demand or receiving payment.Therefore, his evidence also does not come to the rescue of theprosecution.92. For the first time in the witness box, PW14 Sivasankaranwould state that the second accused demanded from the Companyofficials a sum of Rs.1000/= per set. It is to be noted that this isnot the case of the prosecution. It also does not find a place eitherin his statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedureor in his statement, Ex.P374 under section 164 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Hisevidence was completely demolished by the defence by clearly bringingout that the aforesaid version deposed before the court as againstthe 7th accused was a version totally inconsistent with his earlierstatements and particularly not in consonance with the case of theprosecution.93. The statement recorded under section 164 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure is not a substantive evidence. But, suchstatements of the witnesses could be used for the purpose ofcontradicting the witnesses invoking the provision under section 145of the Evidence Act. The portions of the statement given by PW14 wasmarked as Exs.D5 to D8 on the side of the defence. These Exhibitsmarked on the side of the defence not only shake the veracity of PW14but also totally destroys his credibility. Therefore,it is not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ established that the alleged payment made to the 7th accused by PW14was meant for the second accused. Coming to the evidence of PW15Shanmugam, it is found that his testimony does not advance the caseof the prosecution as he was not a witness to making a demand formoney or accepting the same by any one. 94. PW16 P.V.Nair also does not speak to any demand for moneyalleged to have been made by the second accused or the 7th accused orto the alleged payments made to the 7th accused. The above facts andcircumstances would go to show that the allegation that money wasdemanded and accepted from Uptron Company representatives stands notestablished by the prosecution. 95. As regards the case of the prosecution that the secondaccused demanded money for himself from BPL, there is absolutely noevidence on the side of the prosecution. The prosecution chose toexamine PW58 Ravindran to speak about such an allegation. But,unfortunately, he failed to support the prosecution case. No otherwitness also has stated that the second accused demanded money oraccepted money from anyone representing BPL Company in the subjecttransaction. The new version of PW58 Ravindran for the first timebefore the court that the second accused had a connection with whatwas alleged to have been paid to the 7th accused does not merit legalscrutiny. He comes forward with a new version in the witness boxthat pursuant to the demand for money made by the 7th accused with theofficials of the BPL Company, a sum of Rs.6,12,00,000/=was paid tothe 7th accused. The present version in the box reeled out by PW58Ravindran for the first time contradicts both his statement undersection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and his statementEx.P333 recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.96. It is pertinent to refer to the decision in STATE OFHARYANA v. GURUDIAL SINGH AND ANOTHER (1974 SCC (Crl.) 530) whereinit has been held as follows:-"The present one is a case wherein the prosecutionwitnesses have come out with two inconsistentversions of the occurrence. One version of theoccurrence is contained in the evidence of thewitnesses in Court, while the other version iscontained in their statements made before thepolice. According to the version given in court,it was Pargat Singh who shot dead the deceased,while according to the other version it wasGurdial Singh of Ramana who was responsible for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the crime. Again according to the version givenin court, the occurrence was witnessed by AvtarKaur. As against that the version contained inthe police station was that Avtar Kaur had notwitnessed the occurrence. In view of thesecontradictory versions, the High Court, in ouropinion, rightly came to the conclusion that theconviction of the accused could not be sustained.We see no ground to interfere with the judgment ofthe High Court. The appeals fail and aredismissed."97. In view of the above settled position of law, theprevaricating statements of PW27 merits no acceptance. Under suchcircumstances, the testimony of PW37 Balaji and PW35 Krishnamoorthylooses its evidentiary value.98. No credible and unimpeachable evidence has been let in bythe prosecution to establish that money was paid by BPL Company toany one of the accused. 99. As regards the case of the prosecution that the secondaccused demanded and accepted for himself and through the 7th accuseda sum of Rs.1,41,72,000/=, this court has already dealt with theevidence of PW27 Jayaraj and rejected his prevaricating versionsbefore the court. Further, his testimony did not inspire confidenceof the court. He was found to be most unreliable witness andtherefore, his evidence cannot be accepted and safely acted upon. 100. The books of accounts of no one of the Companies viz.,Uptron, Keltron, Videocon, BPL and Solidaire were produced before thecourt in order to show that in their accounts, the payment ofcommission made as alleged were entered. Certain cheques were provedto have been issued and encashed by the third parties. There is amissing link between the encashment of those cheques and the paymentmade to the second accused or the 7th accused. Therefore, theaforesaid charge that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, the 7thaccused received a sum of Rs.6,60,72,000/= as pecuniary advantagefor the second accused also was not established by the prosecution. 101. Coming to the seizure of a sum of Rs.50,500/= from the 7thaccused on 4.11.1996 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P381, attested byPW77 Karunakaran, it is found that the 7th accused has come forwardwith a plausible explanation in the written statement filed by himduring his questioning under section 313 of the Code of Criminal https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Procedure that the said money belonged to his brother-in-law Raju.It is a matter of record that Raja was one of the witnesses whoattested the mahazar, Ex.P381. It would disclose that the saidamount of Rs.50,500/= belongs to the said Raju. Therefore, he isentitled to get back the said amount recovered from the 7th accused.Thus, it is concluded that no charge as against the 7th accusedJanardhanan was established by the prosecution. 102. Let us now take up the charge as against the fourth accusedH.M.Pandey who was the Secretary, Rural Development Department. Thiscourt has already discarded the evidence of PW27 Jayaraj. Jayarajwould depose that he met A4 in the State Guest House on 21.10.1995during evening hours. It is the version of PW27 that A4 demanded acommission of Rs.400/= per set and indicated that there was a brightchance for fixing the price of each television set at Rs.15,000/=. Hewould further depose that A4 asked PW27 not to quote anything lessthan a sum of Rs.15,000/= per television set. So, according to PW27,such an advice was given by A4 to him on 21.10.1995. But, it is foundthat PW27 had quoted the price of Rs.15,290/= per set as per Ex.P139and submitted the same to the office of the Director of RuralDevelopment on 20.10.1995 itself. His quotation at the rate ofRs.15,290/= per television set on 20.10.1995 itself a day earlier tothe alleged advice given by A4 to him would go to establish that PW27was not speaking the truth with respect to the aforesaid episode. 103. PW27 would further state in his chief examination that heproposed to quote at Rs.12,500/= per set during the course of secondTelevision Approval Committee meeting that was held on 26.10.1995.But, such a course of action contemplated by PW27 was obviouslyagainst the alleged advice given by A4 on 21.10.1995. Had he receivedany such advice from PW27, he would not have reduced the quotationdrastically from Rs.15,290/= to Rs.12,500/= during the secondTelevision Approval Committee Meeting. 104. The evidence of PW27 did not receive corroboration fromPW29 Radhakrishnan, the Assistant General Manager of Videocon Companyas regards the demand of commission of Rs.400/= per set by A4. Totop it all, PW29 has come out with a revelation that the fourthaccused in fact asked him as to why Videocon Company could not supplytelevision sets directly to the Government eliminating the agents.If at all A4 wanted to eliminate agents from the deal and expressedhis desire to have direct deal with Videocon Company as admitted byPW29, there was no scope for him to ask for commission of Rs.400/=per set from the agents PW27 and his brother. PW27 would depose thathis brother Rajaguru also accompanied him to the Government Guest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ House on 21.10.1995 to meet A4. The credibility of PW27 hascompletely nose dived. But, quite unfortunately, the prosecution hasnever thought of examining his brother for lending corroboration tothe evidence of PW27. As PW27 is also found to be jointly guilty asper his own showing, it is totally unsafe to rely upon his statementwithout any corroboration from an independent source or bysubstantial evidence unerringly supporting his statement to addevidentiary value to his testimony. The very fact that PW27 chose toquote a sum of Rs.15,290/= per set on 20.10.1995 under Ex.P139 evenbefore meeting A4 on 21.10.1995 and later on quoted for a sum ofRs.12,500/= per set on 26.10.1995 even after meeting A4 with thealleged piece of advice rendered by A4 would go to show that PW27never acted as per the alleged advice of A4. The above facts andcircumstances would go to show that the version of PW27 that A4 askedhim to quote not less than Rs.15,000/= and demanded commission ofRs.400/= per set is found to be totally unbelievable. 105. The independent witness, PW29 completely contradicts thestatement of PW27 inasmuch as PW29 was asked by A4 to explore thepossibility of eliminating the agent and effect supplies oftelevision sets directly to the Government. 106. The cheques given by Videocon Company to PW27 and hisbrother Rajaguru were encashed by them either as self or as thirdparty. PW27 would admit that he does not remember as to how many selfcheques and how many third party cheques were issued. Similar wasthe case with regard to the cheques issued from the account of hisbrother Rajaguru. If those cheques had been marked, the names of thethird parties who received the proceeds of the cheques could havebeen easily detected. Those third parties who really encashed thecheques and allegedly entrusted the proceeds after encashment to PW27and his brother Rajaguru were not examined before the court tomaintain the link in the chain of encashment and entrustment. Ofcourse, the prosecution has produced the statement of account,Ex.P162 of PW27 and the statement of account Ex.P163 of his brotherRajaguru. But, unfortunately, the statement of accounts do notreflect the names of the third parties. But, it would havedefinitely appeared in the third party cheques issued by PW27 and hisbrother Rajaguru. 107. The non-production of those cheques and the non-examinationof Rajaguru, brother of PW27 render the evidentiary value of paymentsalleged to have been made by PW27 totally suspect and unreliable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

108. PW27 has come out with a case that he made payment of a sumof Rs.1,79,200/= on 5.1.1996, Rs.34,00,000/= on 29.2.1996 andRs.2,00,000/= on 13.3.1996 to the fourth accused H.M.Pandey. It is tobe noted that A4 H.M.Pandey ceased to be the Secretary, RuralDevelopment Department on and from 7.12.1995. It is quiteunbelievable that PW27 made payments to A4 on those dates even afterA4 had departed from the Rural Development Department on and from7.12.1995. As regards the alleged second payment of Rs.35,00,000/=on 29.2.1996 to the fourth accused out of the accounts of Rajaguru,brother of PW27, the prosecution should have examined Rajaguru toestablish the said transaction. PW27 cannot point his accusingfinger at A4 for such payment made from the account of Rajaguru. Thethird payment of Rs.2,00,000/= on 13.3.1996 was alleged to have beenmade from out of the account of PW27. The relevant cheque was notexhibited before the court. The bank's ledger, Ex.P162 would reflectthat the said cheque bearing No.024980 was a clearing cheque andcould not have been encashed by PW27 as alleged by him in his chiefexamination. In fact, during the course of cross-examination, PW27would categorically admit that the said cheque was not encashed byhim. Quite against his version in the chief examination that hewithdrew a sum of Rs.2,00,000/= from his account and paid to A4 athis residence in Anna Nagar, PW27 has come out with suchprevaricating versions before the court without any regard for truth. 109. Even as per the own showing of PW27, there was no role forA4 in the increase of allotment from 1000 television sets to 9448television sets. Such being the case, no person of ordinary prudencewould have parted with commission to A4 at the rate of Rs.400/= perset for 8448 television sets. PW27 would depose that having sent afax message Ex.P161 on 17.11.1995 to the Finance Secretary, healongwith his brother met A4 on the next day i.e., on 18.11.1995. Hewould further state that in the meeting with A2 on 19.11.1995, A4also was present. But, A4 has produced Ex.D27 to establish that hehad been to Delhi on 16.11.1995 and returned to Chennai only on20.11.1995. A4 had been to Vellore as found from Ex.D28 on 11.2.1996to attend to the visit of Her Royal Highness, the Duchess of Kent andreturned to Chennai only on 13.2.1996. But, unfortunately, thedeposition of PW27 that he made payment to A4 during that period atChennai was accepted by the Trial Court. The Trial Court wouldreason out that A4 would have come down to Chennai from Vellore andreceived money from PW27 during that period and returned to Vellore.Firstly, that is not the case of the prosecution. Secondly, such asurmise of the court was not supported by evidence. The court is notsupposed to take a departure from the case of the prosecution andsupply its own reasons for arriving at a conclusion with regard to a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ particular fact. The court cannot construct and reconstruct a storydifferent from the one propounded by the prosecution and convict theaccused on that basis. At any rate, such a conclusion arrived at bythe Trial Court is totally unwarranted either by evidence or by factsof the case.110. With respect to the alleged payment from Uptron to thefourth accused, the investigating officer, PW80 has clearly deposedthat PW14 during investigation informed him that on 12.2.1996, heencashed two cheques to the tune of Rs.20,56,250/= and handed overthe said amount to A8. He would further depose that during policeinvestigation, PW14 has never stated that A8 told PW14 that money wasgiven to A4. It is the version of PW14 that the amount ofRs.20,56,250/= was taken to the residence of A4 by PW14 Chandrakumar,PW13 and PW15. PW15 remained waiting in the autorickshaw but theothers went inside the house and met A8. As soon as they met A8, hecontacted A4 and asked him to come to A8's residence. In themeantime, PW13 and PW14 waited in the adjacent room. After sometime,A4 arrived and went straight to the room of A8 and thereafter, A8returned the suitcase informing them that the amount was delivered toA4. But, quite unfortunately, PW80, the investigating officer inthis case flatly denied that PW14 ever told him during the course ofinvestigation that A8 passed on the message to PW14 that A8 paidmoney to A4. The above deposition of PW80 completely contradicts theversion of PW14. During the course of cross-examination, PW14 deposesthat he did not remember whether he had stated during the policeenquiry that a sum of Rs.20,256,250/= was given on 12.2.1996 or not.During the police investigation, it is found that PW14 has statedthat the said sum of Rs.20,56,250/= was handed over to A8 on12.2.1996. But, during the course of cross-examination, hedeliberately comes out with a very vague version. During the courseof further cross-examination, PW14 would finally say that on12.2.1996, no amount was paid to anybody quite against his statementbefore PW80 that the said amount was paid to A8 on 12.2.1996. 111. PW14 would further depose that the cheque dated 5.2.1996Ex.P86 was handed over to Balasubramanian on 24.1.1996 as perEx.P106. It is not clear as to why a cheque dated 5.2.1996 washanded over on 24.1.1996 itself. In this connection, it is pertinentto note that the said Balasubrmanian who received the cheque was notexamined by the prosecuting agency. It was he who could speak as towhen he gave the said cheque to PW15 and how it was encashed.Obviously, there is no record to show that the said cheque wasencashed on 12.2.1996. The episode surrounding other cheque Ex.P87is more mysterious. Though cheque, Ex.P87 dated 7.2.1996 was payable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to PW15, it was received by Balasubramanian only on 28.2.1996 as perEx.P107. When the cheque itself was received on 28.2.1996, theprosecution failed to explain as to how such a cheque could have beenencashed on 12.2.1996 itself. Chandrakumar, who happened toaccompany PW14 for making the alleged payment to A4 was not examined.Chandrakumar being the immediate superior of PW14 could have thrownsome light on the prevaricating version of PW14, but, quiteunfortunately, the said Chandrakumar was not examined before thecourt. The Trial Court has simply relied upon those witnesses whosetestimony does not stand the legal scrutiny and arrived at aconclusion that A4 demanded and received commission from the agentsof the Television Company misusing his office. 112. Now, let us take up the charge as against A5M.Sathyamurthy. The entire case of the prosecution as against the 5thaccused M.Sathyamurthy regarding payment of money to him in relationto Uptron Company is based on the alleged disclosure of A8 Duraisamyspoken to by PW12 to PW15. Those witnesses have willingly andvoluntarily participated in the payment of bribe as admitted by them.Therefore, their testimony cannot be accepted and acted withoutcorroboration on material particulars from independent sources. Itis a well settled proposition of law that evidence of accomplice isuntrustworthy of credit, unless such evidence found corroboration onmaterial particulars from independent sources. In this case,corroboration from independent sources is highly lacking. Oneaccomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. But, quiteunfortunately, the court below has accepted and acted upon theevidence of accomplices as corroboration for the evidence of anotheraccomplice. As stated earlier, PW12 Ganesh Khanna, PW13 S.K.Khanna,PW14 Sivasnkaran, PW15 P.Shanmugam and PW16 P.V.Nair are allaccomplices. Further, their evidence as stated earlier is full ofmaterial contradictions and infirmities. The Trial Court should nothave accepted their evidence to record conviction. 113. The findings of the court below that the 5th accusedM.Sathyamurthy received money through A8 is not based on facts. TheTrial Court has simply surmised that the 5th accused must havereceived money and thereby arrived at a conclusion based on suchconjectures which is not at all sustainable in law. The prosecutionhas miserably failed to establish by acceptable evidence eitherdirect or indirect that A5 received money from A8 Duraisamy to clinchthe colour television set supply deal. 114. PW27 is found to be an accomplice being one of theperpetrators of the crime. He had willingly and voluntarily https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ participated in the commission of the crime as per his own version.There is no corroboration to substantiate his testimony. The courthas already held that the evidence of PW27 is completelyuntrustworthy and his evidence cannot be relied upon when there wasno corroboration from any quarters. 115. PW27 would depose that he attended the alleged meeting ofthe Television Approval Committee at the Directorate of RuralDevelopment at Saidapet, but the evidence on record would clinchinglyestablish that there was no Television Approval Committee meetingheld at the Directorate of Rural Development Department in Saidapet.All the Television Approval Committee meetings were held only in theSecretariat. 116. The evidence of PW27 that he gave a petition to the 5thaccused M.Sathyamurthy at his Saidapet office offering to selltelevision set at Rs.12,500/= did not find a place in the statementgiven by him under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The said material contradiction was not considered by the TrialCourt. With a view to involve the 5th accused M.Sathyamurthy, itappears that PW27 modulated his version to bolster the case of theprosecution. It is the evidence of PW27 that he met A8 Duraisamy inthe company of Raja and Ravi but the said Raja and Ravi were notexamined as prosecution witnesses in this case. The reason for thenon-examination was not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, theprosecution has failed to primarily establish that PW27 met A8 in thecompany of Raja and Ravi. The evidence of PW27 that he paid bribe tothe 5th accused for 9448 television sets whereas the admitted case ofthe prosecution is that A5 alongwith other members of the TelevisionApproval Committee recommended only 1000 sets as evidenced by Ex.P20and it was increased to 9448 television sets only by PW6 as evidencedby Exs.P12, P14 and P16 is found to be totally improbable andunacceptable. When the Television Approval Committee participated byA5 has recommended only 1000 Videocon Television sets, nobody wouldhave ventured to pay bribe for 9448 sets to the 5th accused who wasnot part of the subsequent Television Approval Committee. 117 The Trial Court has not properly evaluated and appraised theevidence of PW27 in proper perspective and has misconstrued the wholeevidence of PW27. The prosecution has come out with a case that theprice fixation was not in the manner known to rules and regulationsand the prices were inflated by including the commission and theprice was fixed at a higher rate and the excess payment was collectedand siphoned off by the accused. But, the Trial Court, after goingthrough the entire evidence, has rendered a categorical finding that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the constitution of the Television Approval Committee was lawful andthe price fixed was perfect and normal as it was in accordance withthe rules and regulations and those television sets also were made inaccordance with the special specifications for the use of theGovernment of Tamilnadu. In such circumstances, there is nonecessity for any Television manufacturing company to pay anycommission or bribe to the accused. The Trial Court failed toappreciate the defence exhibits D10 to D12 in proper perspective. 118. In P.SIRAJUDHIN v. STATE OF MADRAS (1970 SCC (Crl) 240 SC),it has been held as follows:-"It is necessary to conduct a preliminary enquirybefore charging a public servant with theallegations of dishonesty". "Before a publicservant, whatever be his status, is publiclycharged with acts of dishonesty which amounts toserious misdemeanor or misconduct of the typealleged in this case and the FIR lodged againsthim, there must be some suitable preliminaryenquiry by a suitable and responsible officer.The Lodging of such report against a person,especially one who like the appellant occupied thetop position in a department, even if baseless,would do incalculable harm, not only to theofficer in particular, but to the department hebelongs to in general."119. No preliminary enquiry was conducted in this case asmandated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid ratio before chargingA1 to A7. For all these reasons, it is found that the charge asagainst the 5th accused M.Sathyamurthy that he received bribe forplacing orders for supply of television sets is found notestablished. 120. Let us now go to the charge faced by the 6th accusedN.Haribaskar. The charge is that he abused his official position aspublic servant in connection with placing orders for supply oftelevision sets to the villages and obtained pecuniary advantage forhimself to the extent of Rs.35,00,000/= from BPL Company. Theprosecution chose to examine PW58 Ravindran, PW75 Murugesan, PW76Padmanabhan in order to establish the charge. It is to be noted thatPW58 Ravindran and PW75 Murugesan have not supported the case of theprosecution. As a result of which, both of them were treated ashostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

121. PW58 Ravindran had referred to a meeting he had with A8Duraisamy and A9 Muthukumarasamy. He had not stated that any moneywas passed on to the 6th accused N.Haribaskar. In fact, it is hisevidence that as his approach to A6 did not yield any fruitfulresult, he switched over and enlisted the services of A11 Baskar toinfluence A10 Mrs.Sasikala, both of whom were acquitted by the TrialCourt and no appeal was preferred as against the verdict ofacquittal. In view of the above, the evidence of PW58 Ravindrancarries no weight as far as the 6th accused N.Hari Baskar isconcerned. At this juncture, it is better to refer to the judgment ofthe Trial Court. The Trial Judge chose to hold that the evidence ofPW58 Ravindran was of no use so far as A4, A5 and A11 were concerned.The learned Trial Judge chose to convict the accused referring to theevidence of PW58 though PW58 had not stated that he had any personalmeeting with the 6th accused or that he passed on any money to behanded over to the 6th accused. Therefore, the judgment of the TrialCourt recording conviction as against the 6th accused based on theevidence of PW58 is found to be perverse. 122. Let us now go to the evidence of PW75 Murugesan. He doesnot disclose the involvement of the 6th accused in any part of thetransaction in question. To top it all, PW75 Murugesan hasemphatically deposed before the Trial Court that he does not knowany person by name Ravindran (PW58) or Padmanabhan (PW76). But, PW76Padmanabhan would state that he alongwith A9 Muthukumarasamy and PW75Murugesan proceeded to the house of A8 Duraisamy and thereat he notonly saw A8 Duraisamy but also saw one Ravindran handing over asuitcase containing cash to A9 Muthukumarasamy informing him that themoney was to be paid to the 6th accused. PW76 would depose that PW75Murugesan, A9 Muthukumarasamy and himself proceeded from the house ofA8 Duraisamy to the residence of A6 and the suitcase with the cashwas delivered to A6 at his residence. It is his further version thatA6 counted the currency and verified the amount. He would deposethat he did not remember the day or the date on which the aforesaidsolitary visit culminated in the meeting with the 6th accused.Elaborate cross-examination was done to test his veracity andtrustworthiness. 123. PW76, for the first time in the witness box, deposed thatat the residence of A8 Duraisamy, the cash that was given was kept ina suitcase and that it was divulged over there that the money givenwas meant for A8 for getting order for supply of television sets.The investigating officer, PW80 Senrayaperumal has categoricallystated that those aspects were not disclosed by PW76 during the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ course of investigation conducted by him. This shows that thewitness is capable of modulating his evidence by making effectiveimprovements at his whims and fancies. 124. A6 was occupying the topmost bureaucratic position in theGovernment of Tamilnadu at the time of occurrence. PW76 did not havea standing in the society as to venture to meet the topmostbureaucrat at his residence which was guarded by the securitypersonnel. The fact remains that he traded in vegetables in theMetropolitan City of Madras. He was not even a licensed vendor. Norhad he possessed any shop anywhere in the city. It is his versionthat he used to purchase vegetables wholesale and sell them inportion to other retailers. Even such a business transaction wascarried on as per his version from his residence itself. Such aperson could not have that too for the first time, had access to thehouse of A6. Therefore, the challenge made to the veracity andtrustworthiness of this witness made by the accused cannot bebelittled by the court. 125. Another interesting aspect also will have to be adverted toby this court. PW76 Padmanabhan would state that A8 Duraisamy wasresiding in an apartment where a company selling mineral water byname CHERI-O was also operating in one of the flats with its signboard outside. DW1 Dr.Bharath Keerthi, a reputable witness wasexamined on the side of the accused and the lease arrangement he hadwith CHERI-O was also marked. The evidence of DW1 in the backgroundof Ex.D25 would establish clinchingly that CHERI-O moved into one ofthe flats in the apartment where A8 Duraisamy resided only in theyear 1998. It did not exist in the year 1995. There is no reason todisbelieve the evidence of DW1 Dr.Bharath Keerthi. Ex.D25authenticates the evidence of DW1 and completely destroys theevidence of PW76 that he made a visit to the house of A8 Duraisamy.126. Yet another circumstance which surfaced during the courseof trial as regards the previous role of PW76 Padmanabhan also willhave to be referred to by this court. The Trial Court, on a perusalof the evidence on record, has come to a decision that PW76 hadappeared as witness for the police in other cases also. But, verycasually, the Trial Court has commented that such a role of PW76cannot be a reason to reject his testimony. It has also made acomment that nothing has been established to show that PW76Padmanabhan had any personal grievance against A6. It is to be notedthat there is no necessity to prove an element of animosity orgrievance because PW76 being a stock witness even as per the ownshowing of the prosecution would not normally act on grievance or https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ animosities, but, would act only at the behest of the so-called"Master". The Trial Court ignored to consider the unassailableevidence on record to show that PW76 was a stock witness, who nevergained entry to the house of A8 Duraisamy. When PW75 Murugesan hasemphatically denied any association with PW76 Padmanabhan, the TrialCourt has casually recorded a finding that PW76 Padmanabhan was knownto PW75 Murugesan. The Trial Court has totally forgot the fact thatPW76 Murugesan did not know the person by name Padmanabhan. Nopreliminary enquiry as mandated in the decision in P.SIRAJUDHIN v.STATE OF MADRAS (1970 SCC (Crl) 240 SC) was conducted by therespondent police before taking up the regular investigation againstA6 who occupied the topmost bureaucratic position in the Governmentof Tamilnadu. The court finds that there is no credible evidenceadduced to support the aforesaid charge framed against A6. Theaforesaid charge as against A6 stands not established by theprosecution. 127. Let us now deal with the charge as against A8 Duraisamy.The charge is that A8 Duraisamy, in pursuance of the criminalconspiracy, abetted A4 and A5 to commit the offence of criminalmisconduct by getting pecuniary advantage. The court has also heldthat the criminal conspiracy theory putforth by the prosecution wasnot established. In its endeavour to establish the charge framed asagainst A8 Duraisamy, PW12 to PW15 alone were examined. It is to benoted that the other witnesses do not speak anything about theovertact attributed to the 8th accused. Shanmugam, PW15 wouldmodestly admit that he was not aware of the prosecution story andthat he came to know about the alleged transactions only from hisbrother-in-law Sivasankaran, PW14. PW12 Ganesh Khanna, RegionalManager of Uptron India Limited, Hyderabad would state that A7Personal Assistant to A2 Selvaganapathy demanded Rs.1000/= for A2 andA8 demanded Rs.2750/= for himself, A4 and A5. He would furtherdepose that the agreement, Ex.P79 was entered into for appropriatingthe commission paid by Uptron India Private Limited. Ex.P79, thecommission agreement was sent to the Head Office at Lucknow forapproval, PW12 would depose before the court. No iota of material wasproduced to show that the said agreement was ever sent to Lucknow forapproval. Much worse is that Ex.P79 does not have any seal of theHead Office or Branch Office. The designation seal of the office atLucknow was also not found. 128. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that Uptron Companyis a Government Undertaking of Uttarpradesh Government. It is theemphatic version of PW2 that he did communicate what all transpiredbetween himself, A8 Duraisamy and A7 K.Janardhanan to the Head Office https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and the Head Office in fact approved the proposal to pay commission.No Government Company would orally instruct the officials to go aheadwith payment of commission without placing it on record. Nodocument was filed from the office of Uptron to establish that theproposal to pay commission for placing orders for supply of colourtelevision sets was approved by the Head Office. The non-productioncompels the court to draw an inference that there was no suchdocument available in the Head Office at Lucknow. 129. PW14 Sivasankaran, during the course of chief-examinationwould depose that PW13 S.K.Khanna, one Chandrakumar and himselfproceeded to the house of A8 Duraisamy with Rs.20,56,000/= and handedover the same to the 8th accused Duraisamy, who, in turn, handed overthe same to the 4th accused H.M.Pandey. He would also state that PW13and Chandrakumar and himself witnessed from the next room A8 handingover the amount to the fourth accused H.M.Pandey. The saidChandrakumar was not examined before the court. S.K.Khanna, PW13would claim no knowledge about the payment of money to anyone. Thefact remains that PW13 was not treated as hostile and his aboveversion was not put to test by cross-examination by the prosecutingagency. The aforesaid facts and circumstances would go to show thatPW14 was not speaking the truth. PW14 Sivasaknaran was a servant ofUttarpradesh Government. His brother-in-law entered into anagreement to obtain commission from the supply of television sets bythe Government of India Company of Uttarpradesh. It is the case ofthe prosecution that the said idea was supplied only by PW14.Therefore, there is every possibility for PW14 to fabricate a storyto wriggle out himself and also his brother-in-law from thecomplicity in the transaction clinched by the Government ownedCompany of Uttarpradesh Government. 130. PW14 and PW15 would depose that Balasubramanian was alreadyhaving an account at Tirunelveli but a new account was opened atChennai to appropriate the commission. It is in evidence thatuncrossed cheques towards payment of commission were issued by UptronCompany owned by Uttarpradesh Government. It is totally unbelievablethat uncrossed cheques were issued for lakhs and lakhs of rupeestowards commission by a Government owned Company. PW12 and PW14 havecome out with an artificial version that PW12 Khanna came down allthe way from Hyderabad to issue cheque facilitating the other accusedto encash the same. There is no explanation as to why he ventured tocome all the way from Hyderabad to Chennai for the purpose of simplyentrusting the cheque when it could have been done by post. If thecommission amounts were meant to be paid only to the accused, thenwhy should PW2 come down from Hyderabad carrying the cheques. Such a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ larger issue was not answered by the prosecution. 131. The Government of Tamil Nadu was the purchaser oftelevision sets for installation in villages. In that case, theUptron Company could have contacted the Government of Tamilnadu andinteracted over the matter. The role of intermediaries in theGovernment to Government transaction projected by the prosecutioncast a doubt on the entire story relating to the payment ofcommission to the Minister and other officials throughintermediaries. Ex.P79, the commission agreement is said to have comeinto force on and from 5.2.1996. But, PW12 to PW14 would depose thatit came into existence on 18.1.1996 itself. The last line found inthe agreement has been struck off and rewritten as if the saidagreement came into effect from 18.1.1996. The stamp papers wouldshow that they were purchased only on 22.1.1996. When the stamppapers bore the date of purchase as 22.1.1996, the said documentcould not have come into existence four days earlier i.e., on18.1.1996. Normally, the name of the person from whom it waspurchased would find a place in the stamp papers. But, the stamppapers in Ex.P79 does not bear any such name. The stamp papers werealso not consecutively numbered, it is found. No explanation isforthcoming for such inconsistency found apparent on the document,Ex.P79. 132. Ex.P79 was entered into between Shanmugam, PW15 andS.K.Khanna, PW12 as per the case of the prosecution and it wasapproved by the Head Office. But, nothing was produced by theprosecution to establish that the dealing contemplated under Ex.P79received the approval of the Head Office. Ex.P79 contemplatespayment of commission by cheques in the names of P.Shanmugam,P.Balasubramanian, P.Selliappan and K.Jawahar of Madras. Firstly,the evidence on record would go to show that they were not residentsof Madras, but, they were the residents of Tirunelveli. There is noprivity of contract between Balasubramanian, Selliappan and Jawaharon the one side and Uptron Company on the other side. When there islack of privity of contract, one fails to understand as to how UptronCompany, a Government owned one could have agreed to issue cheques toBalasubramanian, Selliappan and Jawahar. The Uptron Company beingthe Government Undertaking, in order to avoid adverse remarks thatmay be passed by the internal auditors, would not have dreamt ofissuing cheques to third parties who were not parties to the contractat the whims and fancies of its officers. 133. The Government Concern would not issue cheques withoutgetting vouchers. But, in the instant case, the story of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prosecution is that cheques were issued much earlier and voucherswere obtained from the agents much later. It is the admitted case ofthe prosecution that no tax was deducted at source for the whoppingcommission amount in crores drawn by PW15 Shanmugam, Balasubramanianand Selliappan. It is baffling that no tax has been deducted atsource by the Uptron Company a Government Undertaking, as per section194(h) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This court already discarded theevidence of PW14 who allegedly met the fourth accused H.M.Pandey atChennai when he was camping at Vellore in connection with a VVIPvisit. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the court findsthat the Trial Court has wrongly placed its reliance on the evidenceof PW14 in the background of the commission agreement, Ex.P79 toarrive at a finding that the aforesaid charge framed as against the8th accused Duraisamy stood established. It is held that the chargeagainst A8 that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, he abettedA4 and A5 to commit misconduct by getting pecuniary advantage stoodnot established. 134. Let us now take up the charge framed against the 9th accusedS.Muthukumarasamy. The charge is that in pursuance of the criminalconspiracy, he abetted A6 N.Haribaskar to commit the criminalmisconduct by getting pecuniary advantage. In its endeavour toestablish its case, the prosecution has examined PW58 Ravindran, PW75Murugesan, PW76 Padmanabhan. As already held, PW58 was treated ashostile by the prosecution during the course of trial. He had neverstated before the investigating officer or in the statement undersection 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded by thelearned Judicial Magistrate to the effect that the 9th accusedS.Muthukumarasamy used his influence with the 6th accused N.Haribaskarand orders for supply of television sets were obtained. It is alsofound that he had never stated before the investigating officer orbefore the learned Judicial Magistrate who recorded his statementunder section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he didhand- over a sum of Rs.35,00,000/= to A8 Duraisamy for the purposeof handing over the same to the 6th accused Haribaskar. 135. PW75 P.Murugesan was treated as hostile by the prosecution.He has come out with a version that he did not know as to who werePW58 Ravindran and PW76 Padmanabhan. His evidence does not advancethe case of the prosecution. 136. Coming to the testimony of PW76 Padmanabhan, who was avegetable vendor, the court has already held that he was a stockwitness but, the learned Trial Judge had completely ignored such avital fact and chose to rely upon his evidence. Never had he stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ during the course of investigation before the police that forobtaining orders for supply of television sets, he tendered money toA6 Haribaskar through A9 S.Muthukumarasamy. The investigatingofficer, PW80 has categorically deposed that PW76 did not inform himduring the course of investigation that Ravindran did hand over a sumof Rs.35,00,000/= in box to A9 Muthukumarasamy for the purpose ofhanding over the same to A6 Haribaskar. When the witnesses make oneor more statements, either at one stage or in two stages, thetestimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy ofcredence. 137. The Trial Court has misdirected itself and has analysed theevidence on record in a wrong perspective and recorded the convictionas against A2 and A4 to A9. It has, of course, rightly recorded theorder of acquittal as against the first accused. 138. In the result, Criminal Appeal No.498 of 2000 against theorder of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court stands dismissed andthe order of the Trial Court with respect thereto stands confirmed.Criminal Appeal Nos.454, 457, 452, 455, 456, 458 and 453 of 2000filed by A2 and A4 to A9 respectively stand allowed and the order ofthe Trial Court with respect thereto stands set aside. As aconsequence, they are acquitted of all the charges and are set atliberty. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand annulled. Fineamount paid by them shall be returned to them forthwith. A sum ofRs.50,500/= recovered from A7 shall be returned to Raju, the brotherof A7.139. As no claim has been made on M.O.1, suitcase recoveredduring the course of investigation, the same shall be confiscated tothe State. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarssk. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The II Special Judge/ XII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2.-Do- Thro The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch CID, Chennai-2.4.The Superintendent, Central Prison.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.K.S.Dinakaran, Advocate, SR.4089710 cc To Mr.M.Dhamodharan, Advocate, SR.407302 cc To Mr.T.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, SR.407621 cc To M/s.Gita Asokan, Advocate, SR.409661 cc To Mr.B.Rabu Manohar, Advocate, SR.409582 cc To Public Prosecutor SR.40678Criminal Appeal Nos.452 to 458 and 498 of 2000jrg(co)pmk.27.8.2009.