Kancharla Veeraiah v. State rep.byInspector of PoliceVigilance and Anti CorruptionPolice Unit,Pondicherry

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and committed an offence underSection 451 IPC and in the course of the same transaction, theaccused had tried to P.W.1, Deva Neethi Das who is a publicservant by offering a bribe of Rs.7,000/- in cash among some othersundry articles and thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act.3.The case was taken on file by the learned Special Judge asC.C.No.1 of 1997 and on appearance of the accused on summons,copies under Section 207Cr.P.C. were furnished to the accused andwhen the charges under Section 451 of IPC and under Section 12 ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 were explained to theaccused, the accused pleaded not guilty.4. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 11 were examined.Exs. P1 to P7 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.76 were marked.5. P.W.1 is the complainant who would depose that on 7.6.1997while he was returning from the town at about 8.30a.m., he saw theaccused waiting in the verandah of his house at B2 GovernmentQuarters,Lawspet, who introduced himself as Veeraiah and that he isrepresentative of the Twin Theatres at Yanam viz., Sri Padma PicturePalace and Veereswara. Since P.W.1 refused to entertain a privateperson in the official matters in his house, he requested him toleave the place. But the accused insisted that he has come fromYanam and had to return the same day and pleaded for an audience. SoP.W.1 allowed him to enter the front room of his house and gave anaudience to him. The accused narrated that his twin theatres gotdamaged during the cyclone that occurred in Yanam during 1996 andapplied for exemption of entertainment tax so as to compensate theloss incurred by him and that he tried to meet P.W.1 even on6.6.1997 but he could not do so. The accused has further informedthat from the office of the Deputy Director, he was informed thatfor grant of entertainment tax exemption, the proposal has beenprocessed and sent to the Government and that thereafter he met theunder Secretary to the Government Thiru Kuppusamy and requested himto process the exemption in his favour and he has further informedthat the entertainment tax was collected in Andhra Pradesh is muchless than that is being collected in Pondicherry. The said Veeraiahthen produced a plastic carry bag with some materials inside andtold that he had brought some mangoes jelly and pickles from Yanamand requested him to accept the same. P.W.1 irked by the said act ofthe accused, shouted at him to leave the house without disturbinghim. Immediately, the accused left the house and after five minutes,his (P.W.1) wife went to close the door, saw the plastic carry bagleft in the chair with some materials inside and when she openedthe plastic carry bag a white coloured plastic container, anewspaper wrapped small bundle and another small carry bag with apink colour cover inside were found. M.O.1 is the plastic container https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ containing mango pickles. M.O.2 is the plastic carry bag .M.O.3 isthe mango jelly wrapped in an English newspaper. The small plasticcover which was covered by a pink envelope containing currency noteswithout counting the same,he searched for the accused Veeraiah inand around his house in the Air Port Road but he could not find him.Thereafter, he returned to home and phoned up Thiru Hemachandran,Secretary to the Government,LAD at his residence. But he could notcontact him immediately, since he was informed that the Secretarywas otherwise engaged. Then he phoned up the Superintendent ofPolice,Vigilance at his residence . But there was no response. Againhe phoned up Thiru Sivaji Sinha, Superintendent of Police(north)who responded. P.W.1 narrated the incident to the Superintendent ofPolice (north) and requested him to search for Veeraiah . At 9.05a.m. Secretary to Government contacted him over phone. P.W.1narrated him what had transpired in his house. As per theinstruction of the Secretary to the Government , he brought all thematerials to his office at 10.30a.m and prepared a complaint andfiled the same before the Chief Vigilance Officer, viz., the ChiefSecretary. The Secretary came at 11.40 a.m. took the materials andverified the contents. In the plastic container pickles were found.In the newspaper bundle seven mango jellys were found. In a smallcarry bag a pink colour cover was found inside of which there werecurrency notes . He had submitted a typed written complaint to theSecretary. The currency notes found in the white carry bag were ofdenomination of 69 hundred notes and two fifty rupees notesamounting to Rs.7,000/-. At about 12.45p.m., Thiru Shivaji Sinha,Superintendent of Police,(north) Thiru K.S.Ramalingam, Inspector ofPolice, Grand Bazaar came to the office of Secretary to Government,they brought Veeriah along with them. P.W.1 has identifiedVeeraiah . As per the instruction of the Secretary to theGovernment, he went to the office of the Superintendent of Police,Vigilance to file the complaint and to hand over the materials. ExP1 is the complaint dated 7.6.1997 preferred by him. He has alsonarrated the incident which took place on 6.6.1997 at about6.45.p.m., in his residence. He has received a phone call from hisresidence informing that one Veeraiah from Yanam had come to houseto see him and that he has informed not to entertain him and todirect him to meet P.W.1 in his office. Even though he was in theoffice till 7.45 p.m., the said Veeraiah did not turn up . M.O.4 isthe pink colour cover containing 69 currency notes with denominationof Rs 100/- and two currency notes with denomination of Rs.50/-. Hehas also exhibited the currency notes which are M.O.5 to M.O.76.5a) P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. According to P.W.2, on6.6.1997 at about 6.45p.m., her servant maid Valli informed her thatone veeraiah from Yanam was waiting in an auto near the main gate tosee P.W.1 and that she instructed the servant maid to inform thesaid Veeraiah that P.W.1 will not entertain anybody in his house inconnection with the office matters and after informing this to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused, Valli, the servant maid, returned and told P.W.2 that sinceP.W.1 was not available in his office, the accused had come to meethim in his house. Immediately, she contacted P.W.1 over phone in hisoffice and informed about the accused who is waiting outside hishouse. But P.W.2 asked her to inform the accused to meet P.W.1 onlyat his office and accordingly she had conveyed the message to theaccused through her servant maid Valli. The said Veeraiah left thehouse on that day ie., on 6.6.1997. P.W.1 returned to the house atabout 7.40p.m. On the next day ie.,on 7.6.1997 at about 7.45a.m.,P.W.1 went in a moped to the town for blood test and hereturned at about 8.30 a.m., and at that time, the person who cameto the house on 6.6.1997, was found ringing the calling bell in thehouse. When the servant maid opened the gate , she had informed P.W2that the person who came on 6.6.1997 is waiting at the doorstep andinforming that he is Veeraiah from Yanam and wanted to meet P.W.1.So, P.W.2 has provided a chair on the veranda of her house and askedhim to wait there. P.W.1 returned to the house at about 8.30 a.m.,and he talked to the accused for about five minutes and came insidethe house. She gave coffee to her husband(P.W.1) and went to thefront gate and locked the same and at that time, she noticed thatone carry bag was placed on the chair near the door which was leftby the person who was sitting in the veranda. On opening the carrybag, P.W.2 has found M.O1 to M.O.76 inside the said bag and alsoshowed the same to her husband and thereafter her husband P.W.1 wentin search of the person in a moped and he returned after fiveminutes informing that the person could not be traced out. P.W.1then contacted the higher officials over phone and at about 10.15hours P.W.1 went to meet the Secretary,Local AdministrationDepartment along with M.O.1 to M.O.76 in a trucker belonging to theLocal Administration Department. Three police officials came to herhouse on that evening and enquired her.5b) P.W.3 is the typist under P.W.1 who would depose that on7.6.1997 at about 10.30a.m., when he was in the office of Directorof Local Administrative Department, P.W.1 came to the office and hehad taken dictation given by P.W.1 in shorthand and the complaintwas preferred by P.W.1 to the Chief Vigilance Officer at about11.45a.m., the Secretary to the Local Administration Department cameto the office to whom P.W.1 had handed over M.Os 1 to 76. The totalamount of M.Os5 to 76 comes to Rs.7,000/-. M.O.4 is the covercontaining 69 number of currency notes of Rs.100/-denomination andtwo numbers of currency notes of Rs.50-/ denomination. M.Os 1 to 76were handed over by P.W.1 to the Secretary, Local AdministrationDepartment. Since the Chief Vigilance Officer is out of station andP.W.1 was instructed to lodge the complaint before theSuperintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell. At about 10.00p.m.,aperson was brought to the chambers of the Secretary ,LocalAdministration Department by S.P and Inspector. The said person wasidentified by P.W.1 who is the accused in this case. At about https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1.30p.m., all went with P.W.1 to the office of the Vigilance andAnti Corruption Unit to lodge a complaint. P.W.1 handed over M.O.1to M.O.76 along with his complaint to the Superintendent of PoliceVigilance and Anti Corruption. Ex P2 is the form 95 in which he hassigned.5c)P.W.4, Shanmugavalli is the servant maid in the house ofP.W.1. According to her, on 6.6.1997 at about 6.45p.m., the accusedcame in an autorickshaw and pressed the calling bell in the gate andalso informed her that he is coming from Yanam and wanted to seeP.W.1 and accordingly she passed on the massage to P.W.2 who in turnhad contacted P.W.1 over telephone and after that she had asked her(P.W.4) to inform the accused to go and meet P.W.1 to his office.When the message was conveyed to the accused, he left the place andon 7.6.1997 at about 8.00a.m., the accused came to the house ofP.W.1 and sounded the calling bell. The accused informed P.W.2 thathe wanted to see P.W.1 compulsorily, P.W.2 offered a chair to him inthe veranda and the accused occupied the chair and then she wentinside the house to do her household duties.5d) P.W.5 is the P.A. to the Director, Local AdministrationDepartment. On 6.6.1997 a person came to the office and introducedhimself as Veeraiah. P.W.5 has also identified the accused as heis the person who came to the office on 6.6.1997 and informed thathe is coming from Yanam and he required some appointment withDirector, Local Administration Department, regarding Sri PadmaPictures tax exemption. Accordingly, he has also informed theDirector but since he was very much preoccupied with the otherofficial work, he directed the said person Veeraiah to contact theDeputy Director, Thiru Mathivanan and to represent his grievance.Again the said Veeraiah came to his office by 11.00a.m., andinsisted that he wanted to meet Director,Local AdministrationDepartment who in turn had informed that he cannot meet the saidVeeraiah due to his pre occupation. The accused again came on thesame day at 3.45p.m., and wanted to meet the Director. But theDirector refused to meet the accused. Since the accused persisted,he(P.W.5) disclosed the residential address of the Director to theaccused . Then the accused left the office. At about 6.45p.m., theDirector received the phone call from his wife and informed himthat the accused has come to their house to meet him and then theDirector asked him(P.W.5) as to who had furnished the residentialaddress to the accused. P.W.5 has replied that the address of P.W.1was furnished to the accused only by him,since the accused hadinsisted to meet the Director in person immediately and wanted toreturn Yanam on the next day. The Director informed his wife overphone that the accused may be directed to come to his office. TheDirector was in the office till 7.30p.m, but the accused did notturn up. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5e) P.W.6 is the Secretary, Pondicherry Housing Board. He wasworking from June 1995-1998. He would depose that during the cycloneperiod in the year 1996, Proprietor of Sri Padma Picture Palace,Yanam and Veeraswara Chitra Mandir the twin theatre at Yanam hadgiven representation to the Chief Minister requesting the exemptionof entertainment tax since he has suffered loss during cycloneperiod . In the said representation , he has sent a proposal asthat of a lesser tax as in Andhra Pradesh to the Government. Thesaid proposal was forwarded by the Regional Executive Officer to theDirector ,L.A.D, and finally, the said file was sent to the underSecretary of LAD. On 6.6.1997 at about 10.30hours Veeraiah came tothe office and enquired about the progress of the representationgiven by him for exemption of entertainment tax to his twin theatre.P.W.6 has informed him that the matter has been processed and thefiles sent to the Government on 14.5.1997 itself and for furtherdetails he asked him to contact the under Secretary LAD and theaccused left the office. Ex P3 is the attested copies of therepresentation dated 16.11.1996 by the accused. Ex P4 is theattested forwarding letter dated 25.11.1996.5f) P.W.7 is the Receptionist in Government GuestHouse,Uppalam, Pondicherry. During 1997 he was working as anAssistant in the office of Additional District Magistrate,Pondicherry and he dealt with the issuance of licence for thetheatre in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The cinema theatre atYanam by name Sri Padma Picture Palace was in the name of KanchalaKameswaran. After his death, the licence of the cinema theatre haschanged in favour of K.Viswanathan,s/o Veeraiah of Yanam who is thebrother of Kanchala Kameswara Rao. Ex P5 is the copy of the letterdated 30.5.1996 and Ex P6 is the copy of the licence.5g) P.W.8 is the Secretary ,Local Administration Department,Pondicherry. According to P.W.8, on 7.6.1997 at about 8.30a.m.,P.W.1 contacted him (P.W.8) over phone at his residence and wantedto convey some important message, since he was busy had asked himto contact after some time. At about 9.00a.m., on the same day,again P.W.1 contacted him(P.W.8) over phone and informed that on thesame day morning around 8.30 a.m., while he returned to his housefrom town, he saw a person by name Veeraiah waiting there andinformed him(P.W.1).that he wanted to discuss some official matterwith him(P.W.1) He (P.W.8) asked P.W.1 to come to his (P.W.8)office at 10.30a.m.,when he reached the office at 11.40a.m., P.W.1was present in his office. He dictated the complaint before himaddressing the same to the Chief Vigilance Officer. P.W.1 hasinformed him that the accused has left a small plastic bag with somearticles in his house which was brought by him. P.W.8 went throughthe bag which was produced by P.W.1. The bag contained a plastic jarof some pickles, some mango jelly wrapped up and a bundle ofcurrency notes wrapped up (M.O 1 to M.O.76). He has counted the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ currency notes, there was 69 hundred rupees and two fifty rupeesnotes,the total value of the same is Rs.7,000/-. M.O.4 is theCover containing the currency notes and that he has also initialedthe same and the physical verification of the currency notes M.Os 5to 76 was done by him. The complaint of P.W.1 was typed by hisstenographer and after signing the same, P.W.1 handed over thecomplaint to him(P.W.8). He has also made an endorsement on thecomplaint, as "C.S.(on tour) forwarded to S.P.of Vigilance fornecessary action with the material at page 2" and Rs.7,000/- countedby him" and that Ex P1 is the complaint and asked P.W.1 to go to theoffice of the S.P.Vigilance and handed over the complaint along withthe contents of the carry bag and he has also directed hisstenographer to accompany P.W.1 S.S.P. brought a person to hisroom,P.W.1 identified him as the person who came to his house in thesame day morning and who left the small bag in his house.5h) P.W.9 was working as Head Constable Crime Branch BazaarPolice Station , at the time of occurrence ie.,on7.6.1997 at about11.00 a.m.,the Circle Inspector by name K.S.Ramalingam has directedhim to enquire about the person by name Veeraiah, Yanam theatreowner is staying in any lodge in Pondicherry and if he so staying,to bring him and produced him before him(Inspctor Ramalingam) andaccordingly P.W.9 searched some lodges in Pondicherry at around12.30p.m., on the same day, he enquired Victoria lodge which wassituated in Nehru Street, Pondicherry and looked into the registermaintained in the said lodge, he came to that one Veeraiah wasstaying in Room Nio.81 and immediately, he went to room No.81 andenquired the person who was staying in that room , he was informedthat his name was Veeraiah and he is coming from Yanam and at about12.45p.m., he produced the accused before the Inspector who hadarrested Veeraiah and has also given a report about the arrest ofVeeraiah to the Inspector.5i)P.W.10 is the Inspector of Police who was working as CircleInspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Circle at the relevant point oftime. On 7.6.1997 at about 9.15 a.m., Thiru Shivaji Sinha , the thenSuperintendent of Police(north) Pondicherry informed him over phoneto search and produce one Veeraiah aged 35 years of Sri PadmaPicture Palance ,Yanam in Pondicherry Town. In turn, he has directdhis crime Head Constable (P.W.9) to search for the said Veeraiah insome of the lodges in the Pondicherry Town and at about 12.45p.m.the Head Constable Sasikumar(P.W.9) informed that he located atroom No.81 at Victoria Lodge, J.N.Street,Pondicherry and laterproduced him. P.W.10 has informed about this to the Superintendentof Police and on his direction, he produed the accused before theSecretary ,LAD(P.W.8) at about 13.00hours along with Superintendentof Police(North) and at that time P.W.1 was also sitting along withP.W.8. P.W.1 has identified the accused as the person who waspresent in his house at Door NO.B-2,.Government Quarters,Lawspet, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pondicherry on the same day at about 8,.30a.m., in connection withthe matters relating to the reduction of entertainment tax of histheatre at Yanam and while leaving the house of the Director(P.W.1)Veeraiah had left behind a carry bag contaianing a plastic jar , apaper packet and some currency notes and that M.O.1 to M.O.76 arethe articles left behind by the accused and that P.W.1 made acomplaint against the accused addressed to Chief Vigilance Officer,Pondicherry. Since the case fell under the Prevention of CorruptionAct,P.W.8 Secretary endorsed the complaint to Superintendent ofPolice(V & AC) and directed to hand over Veeraiah to the Vigilanceand Anti Corruption Police Unit, Pondicherry and P.Ws1 and 3 ,P.Ato the Secretary (LAD) were asked to go to Vigilance and AntiCorruption Police Unit and lodge a complaint and accordingly acomplaint was preferred at about 13.30hours, the accused was takento Vigilance Anti Corruption Police Unit .5j) P.W.11,is the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and AntiCorruption, Pondicherry. He would depose that on 7.6.1997 at about13.30 hours while he was in his office, P.W.1 came to his officiealong with P.W.3 and the accused and produced a typed complaint anda carry bag containing a plastic jar of mango pickles , a paperpacket containing mango jellies and a paper cover containing Rs7000/-(M.Os 1 to 76). On the basis of the complaint, he registered acase in Crime No.1 of 1997 under Section 12 of Prevention ofCorruption Act 1988 and 451 of IPC. At 15.30hours, the mangopickles, mango jelly and paper cover containing currency notes(M.O.1to M.O.76) were seized under Form 95 (ExP2) and attested by P.Ws 1and 3. He has examined P.Ws 1 and 3 on the same day and recordedtheir statements. At about 18.00hours , he proceeded to Lawspet tothe residence of complainant and examined P.Ws 2 and 4 are recordedtheir statements. He has also drawn a rough sketch Ex P7 at theoccurrence place and had arrested the accused at 21.20hours on thesame day and he was sent to judicial remand on 8.6.1997. On 9.6.1997he has examined P.W.5 and examined P.W.10,P.W.9,and P.W.6 andrecorded their statements. On 13.6.1997, he examined P.W.7 and hehas collected the ration card of the accused Veeraiah . On 11.6.1997he has examined P.W.8 and recorded his statement and aftercompleting the investigation, he has filed the charge sheet againstthe accused under Section 451 IPC and under Section 7 or 11 ofPrevention of Corruption Act 1988 punishable under Section 12 of thePrevention of Corruption Act.6.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, hedenied his complicity with the crime. The accused has neitherexamined any witness nor exhibited any document on his side.7.After going through the oral and documentary evidenceavailable before the trial court, the trial Judge has convicted theaccused under Section 451 of IPC to undergo three months rigorous https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ imprisonment and also convicted and sentenced under Section 12 ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo six months rigorousimprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default sentence. Thelearned Judge has further directed that the sentence to runconcurrently. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned SpecialJudge, Pondicherry, the accused has preferred this appeal.8. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is whetherthe conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge in C.C.No.1of 1997 under Section 451 of IPC and under Section 12 of thePrevention of Corruption Act 1988 against the accused is sustainablefor the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal ?9. Heard Mr.P.N.Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for theappellant and Mr.M.R.Thangavel , the learned Public Prosecutor,(Pondicherry) for the respondent and carefully considered theirrival submissions.10. The point:According to P.W.1, the accused approached him in his house on6.6.1997 to favour him in the entertainment tax to be collected fromhim in respect of twin theatre, Yanam which was according to himaffected in the cyclone of the year 1996.Ex P1 is the complaintpreferred by P.W.1 against the accused stating that on 7.6.1997, theaccused had trespassed into his house in order to offer a bribe ofRs.7,000/- to do some favour in the levy of entertainment tax tobe collected for the twin theatre of the accused which are situatedat Yanam. Two charges levelled against the accused. One is underSection 451 of IPC and another one is under Section 12 of thePrevention of Corruption Act 1988.Section 451 of IPC reads as follows""Who ever commits house-trespass in order tothe committing of any offence punishable withimprisonment , shall be punished withimprisonment of either description for a termwhich may extend to two years, and shall alsobe liable to fine; and if the offence intendedto be committed is theft, the term of theimprisonment may be extended to seven years."Section 442 of IPC define a house trespass as follows:"Who ever commits criminal trespass by enteringinto or remaining in any building, test orvessel used as a human dwelling or any buildingused as a place for worship, or as a place forthe custody of property, is said tocommit"House-trespass"Explanation:-The introduction of any part of thecriminal trespasser's body is enteringsufficient to constitute house-trespass." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ So to warrant conviction under Section 451 of IPC, the prosecutionmust prove that the accused had committed an offence of housetrespass as defined under Section 442 of IPC. So as per Section 442IPC, the definition of House trespass a person who has entered intoa building or remained there, that means, he would have trespassedinto the building without the knowledge or the permission of theowner of the said building.11. The evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 4 are relevant for thepurpose of deciding whether the offence under Section 451 of IPChas been attracted against the accused . P.W.1 in his evidence inthe chief examination would say that while on 7.6.1997 he wasreturning at about 8.30 a.m., from the town, he saw the accusedwaiting in the veranda of his house at door No.B2,GovernmentQuarters, Lawspet, Pondicherry and introduced himself as oneVeeraiah and he is the representative of twin theatre viz., SriPadma Picture Palace and Veereswara, at Yanam. He requested him togo out of his house but the accused had insisted that since he hascome from Yanam and has to return on the same day , he may be givenan audience and the admitted evidence of P.W.1 is that thereafter heallowed the accused to enter the front room of his house.P.W.2 thewife of P.W.1 would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to theeffect that on 7.6.1997 at about 7.45 a.m., P.W.1 had gone to thetown for blood test and at about 8.00 a.m., the accused pressed thecalling bell and her servant maid opened the door and informed thatthe person who came on the previous day ie., on 6.6.1997 has comeand informed that he has come from Yanam and wanted to meet P.W.1and that she provided a chair in the veranda of her housue and askedthe accused to sit there and that her husband P.W1 returned to thehouse at about 8.30 a.m., and he talked to the accused who wassitting in the veranda for about five minutes and went inside thehouse. The evidence of P.W.4 goes one step further in the crossexamination that P.W.2 has offered coffee to the accused and P.W.1invited the accused to the hall which is situate next to the verandaas seen from Ex P7 rough sketch and P.W.1 was talking to the accusedfor nearly ten minutes. So from the above evidence of P.Ws 1,2 and4, it is clear that the accused was invited by P.Ws 1 and 2 to thehouse and was also offered seat and coffee and he was also permittedto enter into the drawing room. Under such circumstances, thepossible inference can be gathered from the evidence against theaccused is that he was only permitted to enter into the house andnot has committed any criminal trespass to warrant conviction underSection 451 of IPC.12. The next charge levelled against the accused is underSection 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which reads asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "Whoever abates any offence punishable underSection 7 or Section 11 whether or not thatoffence is committed in consequence of thatabetment, shall be punishable with imprisonmentfor a term which shall be not less than sixmonths but which may extend to five years andshall also be liable to fine."So to warrant conviction under Section 12 of Prevention ofCorruption Act , it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to provethat the offence under Section 7 or 11 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act has been abetted by the accused.Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act runs as follows:"Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts orobtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person,for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever,other than legal remuneration, as a motive, or reward for doing orforbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing toshow, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavourto any person or for rendering or attempting to render any serviceor disservice to any person, with the Central Government or anyState Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State orwith anylocal authority, corporation or Government company referredto in Clause (c) of section 2 , or with any public servant, whethernamed or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment whichshall be not less than six months but which may extend to five yearsand shall also be liable to fine.Explanations:(a) "Expecting to be a public servant" . If aperson not expecting to be in office obtains agratification by deceiving others into a beliefthat he is about to be in office, and that hewill then serve them, he may be guilty ofcheating, but he is not guilty of the offencedefined in this section.(b) "Gratification" the word "gratification" isnot restricted to pecuniary gratifications orto gratifications estimatable in money.(c) "Legal remuneration" the words "Legalremuneration" are not restricted toremuneration which a public servant canlawfully demand, but include all remunerationwhich he is permitted by the Government or theorganisation, which he serves, to accept.(d) "A motive or reward for doing"a person whoreceives a gratification as a motive or r ewardfor doing what he does not intend or is not in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a position to do, or has not done, comes withinthis expression.(e) Where a public servant induces a personerroneously to believe that his influence withthe Government has obtained a title for thatperson and thus induces that person to give thepublic servant, money or any othergratification as a reward for this service, thepublic s ervant has committed an offence underthis section." Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act says that whoever isbeing a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept orattempts to obtain for himself, or for any other person, anyvaluable thing without consideration, or for a consideration whichhe knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to havebeen, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedingor business transacted or about to be transacted by such publicservant or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of anypublic servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom heknows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned,shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be notless than six months but which may extend to five years and shallalso be liable to fine. So the prosecution must prove that theaccused had abated the offence as indicated above under Sections 7or 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.13. But from the evidence of P.W.1 it can be gathered that on6.6.1997 the accused had tried to meet him in his house but herefused to give any audience and he was asked, according to P.W.1 togo to his house and to meet him on the next day ie.,on 7.6.1997 theaccused had gone to the office of P.W.1 as seen from the evidence ofP.W.3 who has furnished the address of P.W.1 to the accused. But itis seen from the evidence of P.W.3 that even in the office, theaccused could not meet P.W.1. So on the next day ie., on 7.6.1997 atabout 8.30 a.m., according to P.W.1, the accused was seen in theveranda of his house and that P.W1 alone has allowed the accused toenter into the front room of his house and that he had shown somecarry bag containing mango pickles M.O.1 and another carry bagcontaining mango jelly M.O.3 and the accused had told P.W.1 as amark of respect he offered M.O1 and M.O.3 to P.W.1 which werestrongly refused by P.W.1 and the accused was asked to go out of hishouse and that accused had left the house and as per the evidence ofP.W.1 when he went inside his house, his wife closed the door of thefront room saw the plastic carry bag under the chair in which theaccused was sitting and on opening the carry bag, he found M.O.1 andM.O.3 along with M.O.5 to M.O.76 currency notes amounting toRs.7,000/- in 69 hundred rupees denomination and two fifty rupeesdenomination. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14. According to P.W.2, the accused was never entertained tothe drawing room. A perusal of Ex P7 rough sketch will go to showthat two chairs and one sofa are provided only in the drawing roomand not in the veranda. But according to P.W.2 she has asked theaccused to sit in the veranda in a chair provided by her. But thereis no chair shown in the veranda in Ex P7 rough sketch. It isfurther pertinent to note from ExP7 is that no chair is providednear the door step of the drawing room and only a sofa is seen nearthe door of the drawing room. The evidence of P.W2 is that theaccused was not entertained to the drawing room but was allowed tosit on the chair provided by her at veranda. On the other hand ,P.W.1 says that he has allowed the accused to enter into the drawingroom. The natural conduct of a person who claims to be a honest isthat at any circumstance, he will never allow a stranger to enterinto his drawing room that too after knowing that he has come to thehouse to ask some benefit or favour in his favour in theentertainment tax proposal pending with the Government in respect ofhis twin theatre situate at Yanam. Another improbability in theevidence of P.W.2 is that she had seen the carry bag left by theaccused only after the accused left the house. But according to herevidence, she went to close the door immediately after, the accusedleft the house and she had seen the carry bag below the chair inwhich the accused was sitting . The natural conduct expected fromP.W.2 is that she would have tried to see the accused out side herhouse and to ask him to take away the bag. But to our dismay, shehad opened the bag and also informed about the articles presentinside the carry bag to P.W.1 who then in his moped went around insearch of the accused. It is not explained by the prosecution whyP.W.1 after seeing the carry bag immediately contacted the localpolice available to prefer a complaint with them. The evidence ofP.W.4 in the cross examination glares at the evidence of P.Ws 1 and2 because according to P.W.4, the servant maid, the accused wasallowed to enter into the drawing room and was also offered acoffee by P.W.2. It is no way in the evidence that the amount ofRs.7,000/- was shown to P.W.1 or offered to P.W.1 at any point oftime by the accused. Under such circumstances, it cannot be saidthat the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of CorruptionAct 1988 ie., the abatement of an offence under Section 7 or 11 ofPrevention of Corruption Act has been made out against the accused.The doubt shall inure to the benefit of the accused. 15. Under such circumstances, I hold that the charges levelledagainst the accused under Section 451 of IPC and under Section 12 ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act have not been proved beyond anyreasonable doubt against the accused to warrant conviction under theabove provisions of law. Point is answered accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

16. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the convictionand sentence imposed on the appellant is set aside and the appellantis acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if paid, shall berefunded to the accused. Bail bond executed by the appellant shallstand cancelled. M.Os 5 to 76 are to be confiscated to theGovernment after the appeal time is over.sgSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Special Judge, Pondicherry2. The Inspector of Police,Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Unit, Pondicherry.3. The Public Prosecutor,Pondicherry.4. The Record Keeper, VR Section, High Court, Madras.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, Pondicherry SR No.19411+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Sankaranarayan, Advocate SR No. 19602VC(CO)SR/9.4.2007 Crl.A.No.880/2000