MTHE HONOURABLE MR v. M.Asaithambi

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated asfollows:-i) The respondent/accused was employed as Revenue Inspectorin the office of the Municipality of Coonoor, Nilgiris District.The de-facto complainant Anandan (P.W.1) was residing in Coonooralong with his wife Sagayameri. The said Sagayameri was anelected councillor of Coonoor Municipal Council. In ChandraColony, the above said Sagayameri had got a house site measuring3 cents comprised in Survey No.2722. She had applied to theCoonoor Municipality for assessment of property tax in respectof the above said house site. ii) When P.W.1 approached the respondent herein/accused on02.01.2002 at about 3.00 p.m, the respondent herein/accuseddemanded a sum of Rs.7,000/- as illegal gratification. Afterbargain, he agreed for a sum of Rs.5,000/-. However, on09.01.2002, P.W.1 went to the office of the municipality andinformed the respondent herein/accused that he had not got themoney. Thereafter, the respondent herein/accused informed P.W.1that he must pay at least Rs.4,000/- and directed him to come andmeet him in the office on 10.01.2002. iii) On 10.01.2002, P.W.1 went to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing and gave a complaint marked as Ex.P3 at 10.00a.m. P.W.7, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilanceand Anti-corruption Department, Udhagai received the saidcomplaint, prepared Ex.P14-First Information Report andregistered a case as Cr.No.1/2002 on the file of Vigilance andAnti-corruption Wing, Udhagai, under Section 8 of the Preventionof Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter it was decided to trap therespondent herein/accused while receiving the illegalgratification. P.W.3-Anish Ahamed and one Shivasubramania samrajwere invited to be the witnesses in this regard. In theirpresence it was demonstrated by the police as to howphenolphthalein test shall be conducted in trap cases. M.O.3series, namely cash of Rs.4,000/- (Rs.500 x 4 and Rs.100 x 20)were coated with phenolphthalein powder and again entrusted toP.W.1 with instructions to go to the Municipal office and givethe currency notes coated with phenolphthalein powder to theaccused (respondent) in the event of any demand being made byhim. He was also asked to take along with him P.W.3. P.W.1 hadalso been advised to give a signal if the respondentherein/accused received the money as illegal gratification. iv) When P.W.1, accompanied by P.W.3, went to the Municipaloffice, Coonoor, the respondent herein/accused was found in hisseat. When they approached the respondent herein/accused, heasked P.W.1 whether he had brought the money. When the answerwas in the affirmative, the respondent herein/accused came out ofthe office along P.Ws.1 and 3, received a sum of Rs.4,000/- from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.1 as illegal gratification in the presence of P.W.3 and keptit safely in the left side pocket of his pants. Thereafter,P.W.1 gave a signal to the police, pursuant to which the policepeople came out of their hide out. When phenolphthalein test wasagain conducted in the office of the respondent herein/accused byasking him to dip his fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution,the solution turned pink suggesting presence of phenolphthaleinpower. When the respondent herein/accused was questioned aboutthe money received by him from P.W.1, his initial reaction wasthat he did not receive any money from P.W.1. However, afterinitial hesitation, he took out M.O.3 series from the left sidepocket of his pants and handed them over to the police. Thecurrency notes were verified with the numbers already noted inthe Mahazar prepared in the office of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department. Thereafter, the respondent herein/accusedwas given a dhoti to change his pants and the said pants wasrecovered from him. When phenolphthalein test was conducted forthe left side pocket of his pants, it proved positive. v) The Sodium Carbonate solution used at the time ofdemonstration in the office of the Vigilance and Anti-corruptionDepartment and the Sodium Carbonate solutions, used forphenolphthalein test in the office of Coonoor Municipality wereseparately sealed then and there itself. A rough sketch markedas Ex.P11 was also prepared to show the topography of the placeof occurrence. Ex.P1-application of Sagayameri for property taxassessment, Ex.P7-Property tax assessment register, Ex.P8-Distribution register, Ex.P9-Tapal register, Ex.P6-A2 Registerwere recovered from P.W.4, the then Revenue Officer, by P.W.7,the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Separate mahazars wereprepared for entrustment of the phenolphthalein coated currencynotes to P.W.1 in the office of the Vigilance and Anti-corruptiondepartment at the time of preparation for laying a trap and forthe recovery of M.Os.4 to 7 series in the office of CoonoorMunicipality. The Sodium Carbonate solution used for thedemonstration of phenolphthalein test in the office of P.W.7 andused in the trap for the fingers of the respondent herein/accusedand for the left side pocket of the pants of the respondentherein/accused were sent to the Forensic Lab through court withnecessary requisitions and a positive report was received fromthe Forensic Lab. As P.W.7 was subsequently transferred and hewas succeeded by P.W.8 who in turn was later on succeeded byP.W.9, the investigation was continued by P.W.8 and then by P.W.9who completed the investigation and submitted a charge-sheet onthe file of the District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate(Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act) allegingcommission of the above said offences. Necessary sanction forprosecution was also obtained before the submission of thecharge-sheet. P.W.2, the then Director of Municipalities hadpassed the sanction order, marked as Ex.P5.4. On appearance of the respondent herein/accused before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trial court, he pleaded innocence. Necessary charges were framedby the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 7 and13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The respondent herein/accused denied the said charges, pleadednot guilty and wanted the case to be tried.5. Nine witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and 18documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18 and also 7 materialobjects were produced as M.Os.1 to 7 on the side of theprosecution to substantiate the charges framed against therespondent herein/accused. After recording of evidence on theside of the prosecution was over, the accused was questionedunder Section 313(1)(b) regarding the incriminating materialsfound in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. Hedenied them as false and once again reiterated his stand that hewas innocent and that the case was foisted by P.W.1, who was thehusband of an elected councillor of Coonoor Municipality with thehelp of his friends in the Anti-corruption Wing of the policedepartment. No witness was examined on the side of therespondent herein/accused. However, eight documents were markedas Exs.D1 to D8 on his side.6. The trial judge heard the arguments advanced on eitherside, considered the evidence brought before him in this case inthe light of the points urged in such arguments and upon suchconsideration, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failedto prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Holding therespondent herein/accused not guilty of the offences with whichhe stood charged the trial court acquitted him of the saidcharges by its judgment dated 26.03.2004. 7. Aggrieved by the same and challenging the correctness andlegality of the said judgment of acquittal dated 26.03.2004, theState represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police hasbrought-forth this appeal on special leave on various grounds setout in the appeal petition.8. The point that arises for consideration is:- "whether thejudgment of acquittal pronounced by the trial court suffers fromany defect or infirmity warranting interference in this appeal?"9. The submissions made by Mr.R.Muniapparaj, learnedGovernment Advocate (Crl. Side) and by Mr.K.Rajkumar, learnedcounsel for the respondent/accused were heard. The entirematerials on record were also perused.10. The present appeal has been filed by the State with thespecial leave of this court against the judgment of acquittalpronounced by the Special Court under the Prevention ofCorruption Act (District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate),Udhagamandalam dated 26.03.2004 made in C.C.No.3/2002. Section378(1) Cr.P.C enables the State to prefer an appeal to the High https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court against the order of acquittal. But, sub-clause (3) ofSection 378 says that no appeal under the sub-clause (1) shall beentertained except with the leave of the High Court. In thiscase, this court has granted such leave by its order dated29.07.2004 made in Crl.O.P.No.27384/2004. 11. It is a case of trap in which the respondentherein/accused is alleged to have been caught after receiving asum of Rs.4,000/- as illegal gratification. According to theprosecution story, for passing an order of assessment of propertytax on an application made by the wife of P.W.1, the respondentherein/accused initially demanded a sum of Rs.7,000/- as illegalgratification, then reduced it to Rs.5,000/- and at last reducedthe demand to Rs.4,000/- which amount was received by him fromP.W.1 on 10.01.2002 at about 3.00 p.m. It is the further case ofthe prosecution that not willing to pay any amount as illegalgratification as demanded by the respondent herein/accused, P.W.1lodged a complaint with P.W.7 under Ex.P3, whereupon P.W.7organised a trap operation in which the respondent herein/accusedwas caught with the bribe money. 12. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) argued thatthe witnesses for the trap operation had given clear evidencewithout any scope for contradiction and that despite the same,the learned trial judge pointing out minor discrepancies andblowing the same out of proportion, came to an erroneousconclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyondreasonable doubt. It is his further contention that the findingof the court below, can even be termed "perverse" and that thesame has resulted in grave injustice and miscarriage of justicewhich should be rectified and set at right by this court byconvicting the respondent herein/accused for the offences forwhich he was prosecuted.13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentherein/accused would contend that the court below considered theevidence in proper perspective and came to a correct conclusionthat the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonabledoubt; that the presumption of innocence shall be doublystrengthened by the judgment of acquittal and stronger groundsare needed for interference with such judgment of acquittal andthat in this case, the appellant has not made out any suchstronger ground for setting aside the order of acquittal andconvicting the respondent herein/accused reversing the judgmentof acquittal. 14. This court paid its anxious consideration to thesubmissions made on either side.15. Though, P.W.1 happened to be the de-facto complainant,he was not the applicant before the Municipality seekingassessment of property tax for his property. On the other hand, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his wife Sagayameri is said to have made the application-Ex.P1for passing an assessment order fixing property tax for herproperty, namely a house site measuring 3 cents comprised insurvey No.2722 in Chandra Colony, within the limits of CoonoorMunicipality. The said application was allegedly submitted on27.12.2001. Ex.P2 is the receipt issued in the municipal officein token of having received Ex.P1-application. It is the case ofthe prosecution that the respondent herein/accused demanded a sumof Rs.7,000/- as illegal gratification on 02.01.2002 forpreparing the assessment note. It is pertinent to note thatSagayameri (wife of P.W.1) was an elected councillor of CoonoorMunicipality. The taxing authority is none other than themunicipality of Coonoor. As rightly pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the respondent herein/accused, it is quite improbablefor an employee of the Coonoor municipality to demand illegalgratification for making assessment of property tax relating tothe property of an elected member of the very same municipality.16. Ex.P1 is the application submitted by Sagayameri to theCommissioner, Coonoor municipality on 27.12.2001. There is anendorsement made by the Revenue Officer on 03.01.2002 directingthe application to be sent to the Revenue Inspector for hisremarks. It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.01.2002itself P.W.1 met the respondent herein/accused and on that dayitself the respondent herein/accused demanded a sum of Rs.7,000/-as illegal gratification. As rightly pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the respondent herein/accused, it is quite improbablefor the respondent herein/accused to have made such a demand evenbefore seeing the application and even before the application wasreferred to him for his remarks. Only on 03.01.2002, theendorsement was made by the Revenue Officer to send theapplication for the remarks of the Revenue Inspector. However,the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend thatthe mere fact that the said application was directed to be sentto the accused by the endorsement of the Revenue officer dated03.01.2002, shall not be enough to hold that the respondentherein/accused was not aware of such an application and that hecould have demanded illegal gratification expecting theapplication to come to his table for his remarks and calculation.Of course, it is true that such a thing is also probable.However, the said aspect should be kept in mind while dealingwith the evidence regarding the alleged commission of offenceduring the trap operation. It should also be kept in mind thatSagayameri has not been examined as a witness on the side of theprosecution and no reason has been assigned for not examining heron the side of the prosecution.17. It is admitted by P.W.1 that the election to theMunicipal Council was held in the month of October 2001 and hiswife Sagayameri was elected to Ward No.28 as an independentcandidate. He has also admitted that he had acquaintance withall the officers of Coonoor municipality. He has also admitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that there was a long-standing friendship between himself and oneWood Coat Anand. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that the said WoodCoat Anand was in huge arrears of tax to the municipality andthat it was the respondent herein/accused who got arrest warrantagainst the said person. It is the case of the respondentherein/accused that only at the instigation of the said Wood CoatAnand, P.W.1 foisted the case against the respondentherein/accused with the help of his friends in the Vigilance andAnti-corruption wing of the police department. P.W.1 hascandidly admitted that P.W.7, the then Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, Vigilance and Anti-corruption was known to him and theywere close enough to shake hands whenever they would meet. Ifthe evidence of P.W.1 is considered in its entirety, thesubmission made by the learned counsel for the respondentherein/accused that he is not a reliable witness and he iscapable of manipulating things, becomes sustainable or at leastprobable. Ex.P1-application for property tax assessment wasgiven in the name of Sagayameri. But during cross-examination,P.W.1 has admitted that he himself put the signature of his wifeSagayameri in Ex.P1-application. As he had made such a change ofversion during cross-examination by the learned counsel for therespondent herein/accused, the trial court granted permission tothe Public Prosecutor to treat him hostile and cross-examine him.Even during such cross-examination on behalf of the State, heagain asserted that it was he, who put the signature of his wifeSagayameri in Ex.P1-application. Again while he was cross-examined further on behalf of the respondent herein/accusedadmitted that his wife would not sign as the signature found inEx.P1. Therefore, the said signature alone has been marked asEx.D3. When a person has gone to the extent of admitting that hehimself forged the signature of his wife as the applicant, hiscredibility is impaired to a great extent. 18. In Ex.P3-complaint it has been stated that there was ashed in the property regarding which property tax assessment wassought for in Ex.P1-application. Admittedly, if there was anysuperstructure of a minimum value, the property tax for the samewould be lesser than the property tax that would be levied for avacant site. It is the contention of the respondentherein/accused that P.W.1 wanted him to make an assessment ofproperty tax at a lesser rate on the ground that the property wasnot a vacant site and a superstructure of lesser value was therein the property and that when the same was not accepted, at theinstigation of Wood Coat Anand, P.W.1 foisted the case againstthe respondent herein/accused. It is the clear admission ofP.W.1 that no shed was in existence in the above said property atthe time of submission of the application as noted in Ex.P3-complaint. P.W.1 has also admitted that Ex.D1 series are thephotographs of the property of his wife regarding which Ex.P1application had been given and that Ex.D2 series are theirnegatives. It is obvious from the said photographs that nosuperstructure was found in the said property. P.W.1 has also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ clearly admitted that the property remained a vacant site andthere was no shed in the said property. In Ex.P1-application,except the signature of the applicant and the door number of theproperty, no other particular were provided. All the columns hadbeen left blank. Even in the Form 'A' attached to theapplication, all the columns except door number had been leftblank. Therefore, it is quite probable that an attempt wouldhave been made to get the property assessed for property tax asif it had a small shed in it so that it would attract a lesseramount as property tax, whereas in fact it was a vacant site.Therefore, the motive for foisting the case against therespondent herein/accused, as contended by him, becomes moreprobable. Apart from that, the de-facto complainant, on whosecomplaint the case was registered and the trap was allegedlyorganised, has betrayed the prosecution by admitting thecontention of the respondent herein/accused that he wanted to gethim trapped in a criminal case and for that purpose he gave afalse complaint against the respondent herein/accused at theinstigation of the above said Wood Coat Anand. For betterappreciation, the following excerpts from his evidence in thevernacular language is extracted here under."cl;nfhl; Mde;jpid ifJ bra;tjw;F vjphp jhd; fhuzk;vd;w tpguk; vdf;F gpd;dhy; bjhpa te;jJ vd;why; rhpjhd;/cl;nfhl; Mde;j; vg;goahtJ M$h; vjphpia khl;litf;fntz;Lbkd;gjw;fhf bgha;ahf xU g[fhiu bfhLf;f bra;jhh;vd;Wk; mij gpd;dhy; bjhpe;Jbfhz;nld; vd;why; rhpjhd;/"19. When the very foundation of the prosecution case isshaken by the admission of P.W.1 that he gave a false complaintagainst the respondent herein/accused at the instigation of theabove said Wood Coat Anand, the further case of the prosecutionregarding the trap should also be approached with a greatercaution than the one required relating to the complaint-Ex.P3.Of course, there are evidence in the form of depositions ofP.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.7 to the effect that, after the registrationof the case based on the complaint of P.W.1 marked as Ex.P3,P.W.3-Anish Ahamed, an employee in Tamil Nadu Electricity Boardand one Shivasubramaniam samraj from Horticulture Department wereinvited by P.W.7 and in their presence a demonstration was madeto show how the phenolphthalein test would work. The requisitionfor sending the material objects for chemical analysis to theforensic laboratory has been marked as Ex.P16. The coveringletter of the trial court sending the said articles to theforensic laboratory for chemical examination has been marked asEx.P12. The sample Sodium Carbonate and sample phenolphthalein,the Sodium Carbonate solution used at the time of trap for thefingers of the respondent herein/accused and such a solution usedfor the pocket of his pants were also sent along with therequisition. The Sodium Carbonate solution used for testing theright hand fingers of the respondent herein/accused contained in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a sealed bottle marked as "S-1", a similar solution used fortesting the fingers on the left hand of the respondentherein/accused marked as "S-2" and the Sodium Carbonate solutionused for testing the pants pocket of the respondentherein/accused marked as "S-3" in the bottle had been sent to theforensic laboratory along with the samples of Sodium Carbonatepowder used for the phenolphthalein test marked as 'A' and thesealed cover containing controlled samples of phenolphthaleinpowder used for the test at the time of trap marked with themarking 'B'. The sample Sodium Carbonate and samplephenolphthalein powder have been marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2,whereas the Sodium Carbonate used for testing the fingers of theaccused and the pants pocket of the accused have been marked asM.Os.5 to 7. The report of the Scientific Assistant, countersigned by the Scientific officer and also by the AssistantDirector of Forensic Laboratory has been marked as Ex.P13. UnderEx.P13, M.O.1 was certified to be Sodium Carbonate, M.O.2 wascertified to be phenolphthalein powder and M.Os.5, 6 and 7 werecertified to contain both Sodium Carbonate and phenolphthalein.As already pointed out, the demonstration shown by the policeofficers to the witnesses for the said demonstration, namelyP.Ws.3 and 1 is not disputed. However, there is a disputeregarding the manner in which the phenolphthalein test wasconducted during the course of trap operation. 20. It is the contention of the respondent herein/accusedthat he did not make any demand and he did not receive any moneyas illegal gratification from P.W.1. It is his furthercontention that the entire trap operation was a stage managedshow organised by P.W.7 who was a friend of P.W.1 and that P.W.1did it at the instigation of one Wood Coat Anand. The learnedcounsel for the respondent herein/accused pointed out theadmission made by P.W.1 in this regard that the respondentherein/accused took effective steps to collect the arrears of taxdue to the municipality and in the case of the above said WoodCoat Anand he had not only obtained a non-bailable warrant butalso executed the same and produced him before the court. Thelearned counsel drew the attention of the court to the admissionmade by P.W.1 that the said Wood Coat Anand wanted to takerevenge on the respondent herein/accused and at his instigationhe lodged a fase complaint against the respondent herein/accusedand that the police officer (Deputy Superintendent of Police) whoregistered the case and organised the trap, namely P.W.7-Gibsonwas a friend of P.W.1. In the above said background, theevidence regarding the actual occurrence during the alleged trapoperation has to be considered. P.W.1-the de-facto complainant,P.W.3-an eye witness and attestor of the mahazars, P.W.4-theRevenue Officer who also attested the mahazar prepared in thescene of occurrence, P.W.7-Thiru.Gibson, the DeputySuperintendent of police who registered the case and organisedthe trap are the witnesses examined on the side of theprosecution to prove that the respondent herein/accused received https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ M.O.3 series currency notes and on a test being conducted, theSodium Carbonate solution turned pink. 21. So far as the testimony of P.W.1 is concerned, aspointed out supra, he is not a reliable witness and that he hasadmitted to have given a false complaint against the respondentherein/accused. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that when P.W.1 and2 met the respondent herein/accused at about 3.00 p.m on10.01.2002 in his office, he asked P.W.1 whether he had broughtthe amount for which P.W.1 gave the reply in the affirmative;that immediately the respondent herein/accused took them out ofthe office and received the amount tendered by P.W.1 outside theoffice; that the respondent herein/accused received the amountusing his right hand, changed it to his left hand and then put itin the left side pocket of his pants. It is also his evidencethat after receiving the signal from P.W.1, P.W.7 and otherpolice officials entered the office and conducted, at the firstinstance, phenolphthalein test to both the hands of therespondent herein/accused. It is his further evidence that whenthe phenolphthalein test proved positive, the respondentherein/accused, after initial denial and hesitation, handed overthe M.O.3 series-currency notes taking out the same from his leftside pocket of his pants. It is also his evidence that P.W.7gave a dhoti to the accused to wear and got the pants of theaccused which also proved positive for the phenolphthalein testwhen the left side pocket of the pants was dipped in the SodiumCarbonate solution. Where from the dhoti came? Whether they hadgone there with the dhoti in anticipation that the accused wouldbe wearing pants and he would venture to put the phenolphthaleincoated currency notes in his pocket? – there is no explanation orevidence. 22. P.W.4, the then Revenue officer of Coonoor municipalityhas not stated in his evidence that he saw the accused receivingany money from P.W.1. On the other hand, he corroborated theevidence of P.W.2 regarding the phenolphthalein test conductedfor the hands and pants of the accused and also the recovery ofM.O.3 series currency notes. P.W.4 has clearly admitted that hewas not an eye witness for the act of the accused receiving theamount and for the act of P.W.1conveying the said message with asignal as per the pre-planned arrangement. However, in themahazar marked as Ex.P10 those particulars have also beenincorporated. Therefore, it is obvious P.W.4 has attested Ex.P10which contains those particulars also, without knowing thecorrectness of the same. It is also his admission that he wasnot aware of the particulars found in page 2 of Ex.P10. However,he has not chosen to say that he could not attest the mahazar asit contained particulars which were not known to him. In thisregard P.W.7's evidence also seems to be supporting andcorroborating the evidence of P.Ws3 and 4. But a vitaldiscrepancy making inroads into the credibility of thosewitnesses can be noticed when their testimonies are compared with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the documentary evidence found in Ex.P12. Ex.P12 is the officecopy of the letter of requisition sent by the court below to theforensic laboratory for chemical examination of M.Os.1, 2, 5, 6and 7. In the said requisition letter marked as Ex.P12, item 3has been noted as "Sodium Carbonate phenolphthalein in resultantsolution (pink colour) tested on the right side pants pocket ofaccused marked as 'S.3' in a bottle and sealed". However, inEx.P13, the report received from the forensic laboratory thesolution marked as 'S.3' has been described to be the resultantSodium Carbonate and phenolphthalein solution dipped with the"left hand side pants pocket lining portion." 23. Ex.P16 is the letter of requisition submitted by theInspector of Police (Vigilance and Anti-corruption) to the trialcourt for sending M.Os.1, 2 and 5 to 7 to the forensic laboratoryfor chemical analysis. It simply contains the followingdescription of M.Os.5 to 7:- "Three sealed bottles containingresultant solutions obtained during the Phenolphthalein test, alllabeled as 'S-1', 'S-2' and 'S-3'." Only in the case history, ithas been stated that the left side pocket portion of the pants ofthe accused from which money was taken out and produced by theaccused was also subjected to phenolphthalein test. In Ex.P10-mahazar also it has been stated that the left side pocket of thepants of the accused was subjected to phenolphthalein test. Wecan assume that the court below might have committed a mistakewhile describing M.O.7 to be the resultant Sodium Carbonatephenolphthalein solution used for testing the pocket of the pantsof the accused by terming it "right side pocket of the pants"instead of "left side pocket of the pants". But the saiddiscrepancy will assume importance in the light of absence of anyexplanation on the side of the prosecution as to where from theDeputy Superintendent of Police got the dhoti which was allegedlygiven to the accused. There is total absence of evidenceregarding where from the said dhoti came. That apart, neitherP.W.7, nor the subsequent investigating officers chose to getback the dhoti and produce it to be identified by the witnesses.If the admission made by P.W.1 in this regard is considered inthe above said background, it will cause a serious doubt in theprosecution version. 24. P.W.1 has made a clear admission in his evidence duringcross-examination that the accused was found wearing a dhoti whenhe met him for the first time on the date of occurrence and thathe was also wearing the garland showing that he was underpreparation to visit Sabarimala "rghpkiyf;F khiy nghl;oUe;jhh;". Theaccused has also given an explanation that he had prepared forvisiting Sabarimala and for that purpose he had worn thenecessary symbols like garland and black dhoti; that on the dateof occurrence since a higher official was visiting Coonoor and hehad called for a meeting, he had brought his pants to be wornwhen the higher official would visit and that the said pants wastaken and used by the police to foist the case against him. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this regard, the evidence of P.W.7, during cross-examinationlends support to the contention of the accused to some extent. Atleast the admissions made by P.W.1 would cause a reasonablesuspicion in the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 has admittedthat the right side pocket of the pants was torn. It is thecontention of the accused that since he found the right sidepocket of the pants torn, he had chosen to create the mahazar asif the money was kept in the left side pocket of the pants.Though there is evidence to the effect that P.W.7 caused thephenolphthalein coated currency notes to be placed in the shirtpocket of the P.W.1 with instructions not to touch it before everthe accused would make a demand, P.W.7 has admitted that he wasnot aware whether P.W.1 before going to the place of occurrencehandled the phenolphthalein coated currency notes. If at all itwas true that the accused was given a dhoti for changing hispants, P.W.7 would not have failed to get back that dhoti andproduce the same. In this case, the same was not at allrecovered and produced. 25. P.W.1 has also admitted that when he met the accused inhis office on 10.01.2002 he shook hands with him. During theexamination under Section 313(1)(b) the accused submitted a veryshort written statement in which he has stated that on 10.01.2002P.W.1 came to him, shook hands with him and left the placestating that he would return after a short break; that on thedate of occurrence he was wearing a black dhoti as he had madepreparations for visiting Sabarimala; that the Regional directorof Municipalities, Tirupur had proposed to visit Coonoor on thatday and that apprehending his appearance before him with a dhotiwould be viewed as a disrespect he had kept his pants in theracks with the idea of wearing it when the Regional Directorwould visit the office. The District Collector who is theChairman of the District Urban Development Agency had convened ameeting for periodical review of the on-going urban povertyalleviation programme at 11.00 a.m on 10.01.2002 at theCollectorate of the Nilgiris District. The same is evidenced bya copy of the communication sent by the Regional Director ofMunicipal Administration, Tiruppur, which has been annexed to thesaid written statement. Subject No.2 of the meeting was theproposal to review the progress of the self employment componentof SJSRY. The Lead Manager and the Municipal Commissioner,Coonoor had been asked to take necessary steps to utilise thebalance subsidy of self-employment component of SJSRY.Therefore, it is quite obvious that the Regional Director ofMunicipal Administration, Tirupur had convened a review meetingand the Commissioner of Coonoor municipality also had a part toplay in the review meeting. Under such circumstances alone, therespondent herein/accused contends that he had taken his pantsand kept it in the racks with the idea of wearing it if theRegional Director would pay a visit to the office. The same isquite probable. The said stand gets strengthened by theadmission of P.W.1 that the accused was wearing a black dhoti on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the date of occurrence as a symbol of his preparation to visitSabarimala. The above said discrepany will improbablise the caseof the prosecution or at least create a reasonable suspicionregarding the prosecution theory. 26. In this case the trap was organised by P.W.7, the thenDeputy Superintendent of Police. The investigation was initiallyconducted by P.W.8, who was then an Inspector of Police asubordinate to P.W.7. Therefore he would not have ventured toaccept the statements or records which would go against the storypropounded by his superior, namely P.W.7. In fact P.W.8, whiledeposing before the court has not even divulged the fact that hewas an Inspector of Police when he took up the investigation. Thesame seems to be a suppression with ulterior motive. However,sensing that such a ground may be taken as a defence, the lastlap of investigation was entrusted to P.W.9, an officer equal inrank with P.W.7. However, major part of the investigation hadalready been done by P.W.8 while he remained as an officersubordinate to P.W.7. 27. As pointed earlier, it is quite improbable for anemployee of the municipality, namely Revenue Inspector to demandbribe from the husband of an elected councilor of themunicipality, that too in connection with an applicationsubmitted by the councilor herself. It is also admitted that theaccused did not have the power to assess property tax. It hasalso been admitted by P.W.4 that the Commissioner alone did havethe authority to pass orders of assessment of property tax.Admittedly the property of Sagayameri, the wife of P.W.1 was notan agricultural land so that it would have been exempted fromassessment of property tax. As it was a house site, the same wasliable to be assessed for property tax as vacant site. When thesite comprises a pucca building it will attract a higher propertytax. On the other hand, if it comprises a small hut or a shedand the remaining land is shown to be the land appurtenant to theshed or hut, then assessment of property tax would not be made onthe basis that the property is a vacant site. P.W.4 has clearlyadmitted that the property of the wife of P.W.1 was assessed fora property tax of Rs.74/- on the ground that it had a tin shedmeasuring 6' x 8'. It is also admitted by him that had it been avacant site, it would attract a tax of 1.6% on the value of thevacant site. He has clearly admitted that a lesser amount hadbeen levied as property tax on the ground that there was a tinshed in a portion of the property. However, P.W.4himself hasadmitted that the said property of Sagayameri had been shown tobe a vacant site in the document produced by her. P.W.6, thethen bill collector employed in Coonoor municipality has alsoadmitted in his evidence that when he was examined by the police,he did not state that there was a shed in any portion of theproperty of Sagayameri. The photographs produced by the accusedand marked as Ex.D1 series whose negatives are marked as Ex.D2series, also clearly show that there was no superstructure in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said property. Therefore, Sagayameri being an elected councilorof Coonoor municipality should have exerted her influence andobtained an assessment at a lesser rate showing the existence ofa small shed in the property even though in fact there was nosuch shed. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for therespondent herein/accused, the refusal on the part of the accusedto put a favourable note as if a shed was in existence in thesaid land, could have provoked P.W.1 to give a false complaintagainst the accused. 28. In addition to that, P.W.4 has clearly admitted thatwithin three months from the date of assumption of office asRevenue Inspector in the Municipality of Coonoor, the respondentherein/accused was able to collect arrears of tax from so manypersons and that he filed a criminal case against one Wood CoatAnand, a friend of P.W.1, got a non-bailable warrant against him,arrested him in execution of the non-bailable warrant andproduced him in the court. The said Wood Coat Anand is said tohave used P.W.1 to foist a case against the respondentherein/accused. In fact P.W.1 has also admitted such lodging ofa false complaint at the instigation of the said Wood Coat Anand.29. If all these aspects are taken into consideration, onecannot come to any other conclusion than the conclusion thatthere are many improbabilities in the prosecution case capable ofgiving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the case could havebeen foisted as contended by the respondent herein/accused. Thetrial court considered the evidence in this case in properperspective and came to a correct conclusion that there were manyimprobabilities which cumulatively caused a reasonable suspicionregarding the case of the prosecution and that none of thecharges framed against the respondent herein/accused was provedbeyond reasonable doubt.30. In the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bacchudas @ Balramand Ors. reported in 2007(2) Crimes 58 (SC) the Hon'ble SupremeCourt has stated that "in an appeal against acquittal there couldbe no embargo on the appellate court to review the evidence; thatthe paramount consideration of the court should be to ensure thatmiscarriage of justice was prevented and that compelling reasonsshould be there for interfering with the judgment of acquittal."31. In Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in(2007) CCR 465 (SC) it has been observed that, "it cannot,however, be forgotten that in case of acquittal, there is adouble presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, thepresumption of innocence available to him under the fundamentalprinciple of criminal jurisprudence that every person should bepresumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by acompetent court of law. Secondly the presumption of hisinnocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmedand strengthened by trial court. If two reasonable contractionsare possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ court shall not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by thetrial court."32. If the said principles enunciated in the above saidjudgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are applied to the factsof the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived atis that the appellant (State) has not made out such stronggrounds for interference with the judgment of acquittalpronounced by the court below. This court, on a re-appreciationof evidence, is not in a position to come to a conclusiondifferent from the one made by the trial court. The judgment ofthe trial court acquitting the accused, according to theconsidered view of this court is neither infirm nor discrepants.There is no merit in the appeal and the same deserves to bedismissed. 33. In the result the criminal appeal is dismissed and theorder of the learned District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate& Special Judge, Udhagamandalam acquitting the respondentherein/accused is confirmed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarasr/To1.The District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate & Special Judge, Udhagamandalam2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station Udhagamandalam3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, MadrasCopy to : The Section Officer,Criminal Section, High Court,Madras.+1cc to Mr.K.Rajkumar, Advocate Sr 28332BKY(CO)km/22.7. Crl.A.No.966/2004