S K NATESAN Vs. STATE REP
LAWS(MAD)-2003-8-132
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on August 08,2003

S.K.NATESAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The accused Nos.1 and 2/appellants herein, who stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 384 r/w 34 IPC, 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act and sentenced to undergo one year RI with a fine of Rs.500/- in default one month RI each under Section 384 r/w 34 IPC, six months RI with a fine of Rs.250/- in default two weeks RI each under Section 7 of PC Act and one year RI along with fine of Rs.250/- in default two weeks RI each under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act have brought forth this appeal.
(2.)The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
a) A1 and A2 were working as Office Assistants in the office of Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), Commercial Tax, Salem during the relevant period. P.W.1 Nazer Sherif and his partners were running their business in the name "Ragam Readymades" at Cherry Road, Salem. The same was also registered with Commercial Tax office as found under Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 certificates.

b) On 10.11.1989 at about 1.30 p.m., both the accused came to the shop of P.W.1 and demanded Rs.100/- as Deepavali inam. P.W.1 expressed his inability and both the accused threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, P.W.1 agreed to pay the amount and noted in the note book in page No.25 maintained by A1 and A2. The same was marked as Ex.P.1. Again on 23.11.1989 at about 4.00 p.m., when P.w.1 and his father P.W.5 Ahamed Sherif were in the shop, both the accused came and demanded money as deepavali inam. P.W.1 replied that his partners are not agreed to pay Rs.100/- and refused to pay. Both the accused threatened P.W.1 that a raid would follow if P.W.1 did not make the payment and that they would come again on 27.11.1989 at about 6.00 p.m. for getting the money.

c) P.W.1 was not willing to pay the money. He lodged a complaint Ex.P.2 to P.W.10 Ashokan Inspector of Police, DVAC, Salem on 27.11.1989 at about 3.00 p.m. P.W.10 prepared printed FIR Ex.P.22 and issued a copy to P.W.1 and the signature of PW1 was marked as Ex.P.3 in Ex.P.22. P.W.10 arranged official witness P.W.2 and one Narasimmalu and introduced to P.W.1 for trapping the accused. P.W.10 explained about the trap to P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Narasimmalu and received money M.O.1 and M.O.2 series and demonstrated phenolphthalein test to P.Ws.1 and 2 and other official witnesses and prepared Ex.P.4 mahazar and obtained signature from P.Ws.1 and 2, Narasimmalu. P.W.10 himself also signed the same. P.W1 and P.W.2 and the investigating officer P.W.10's team went to Cherry Road, where P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone gone to P.Ws.1's shop and seated there at about 6.45 p.m. A1 and A2 came to the shop of P.W.1 and seated in front of cash counter and both the accused made a demand.A2 told that they had to come on so many times for getting Rs.100/-. P.W.1 took MOs.1 and 2 series money Rs.100/- from his pocket and gave it to A.1. A1 received the money and put in into the rexene bag MO8 carried by A1 and asked P.W.1 about P.w.2. P.W.1 told A1 that he is one of the partners.

d) At about 6.50 p.m. P.W.1 gave the pre-arranged signal to P.W.10 by folding sleeves of his shirt by standing from the seat. P.W.10 came to the shop and introduced himself to A1 and A2 and prepared two bottles of sodium carbonate solution MOs.6 and 7 and asked A1 to dip his hands one by one in the solution and the same phenolphthalein test proved positive. P.W.10 asked A1 about M.Os.1 and 2 series. A1 produced M.Os.1 and 2 series from MO8. P.W.10 prepared a mahazar under Ex.P.9 and the same was signed by P.W.2, P.W.10, one Narasimmalu and another Inspector of Police, namely, Panneer Selvam. A copy of Ex.P.9 was served to A1 and A2. P.W.10 prepared Ex.P.11 observation mahazar. On requisition made by P.W.10, P.W.9 Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Salem perused the records and issued Ex.P.21 sanction order on 29.11.1990. P.W.10 made a request to the Court for sending MO3 to MO9 for chemical analysis under Ex.P.23. Accordingly, the same was sent for chemical analysis. Ex.P.25 chemical report was received by the Court. P.W.10 examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements on various dates. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against A1 and A2 by the investigating officer under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.)In order to prove the charges levelled against both the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 25 exhibits and 9 Mos. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence on the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witnesses were examined. No documents or M.Os. were marked on the side of the defence. On consideration of the rival submissions made and scrutiny of the materials available the lower court has found both the accused guilty and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as referred to above. Aggrieved appellants have brought forth this appeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.