Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 1084 of 2006
PETITIONER:
R. Sundararajan
RESPONDENT:
State By D.S.P., SPE, CBI, Chennai
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/10/2006
BENCH:
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
MARKANDEY KATJU, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High
Court dated 31.01.2006 by which the appeal of the accused-appellant against
his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act by the Trial Court was upheld.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts in brief are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
accused’) was employed as group "D" staff, A/C and Power, Harbour Telephone
Exchange, Chennai-1 and as such, he was a public servant. It is alleged
that the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1500/- on 9.11.1992
from Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the cousin of Tmt. Nagalakshmi at No. 38,
Mosque Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting
permanent telephone connection under OYT. The amount was demanded at 8.05
p.m. on 9.11.1992 in the house of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and the appellant was
caught red handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification.
Jayakumar (P.W.5), who is the younger brother of the accused has been
working as LDC in Madras Telephones Commercial Section (South), G.R.
Complex, Mount Road, Chennai-35 and Narayanaswamy (P.W.8) was also working
in the same section as UDC and they were dealing with new telephone
connections of Madras Telephones (South) and they used to help the accused
and inform with regard to new telephone connections and the movement of
files and the accused used to meet the subscribers and by convincing them
as if he was helping them in getting new telephone connection, he was
collecting money.
Tmt. Nagalakshmi is a widow and was residing at No.38, Mosque Street,
Vadapalani, Madras-26 and she applied for new telephone connection under
OYT Scheme and she wanted urgent telephone connection in her residence,
since she was under medical treatment for diabetes and chest pain. She also
applied for temporary telephone connection to the Chief General Manager,
Madras-10, enclosing medical certificate. The General Manager (Exchanges),
Madras Telephones sanctioned temporary telephone connection on 31.12.1991
to her for six months and it was dealt with by Jayakumar (P.W.5), brother
of the accused in providing telephone connection to Tmt. Nagalakshmi. In
May, 1992, she applied for extension of six months for the temporary
telephone connection and it was processed by V. Narayanaswamy (P.W.8) and
extension was approved. As per the release of 747 new telephone connections
ordered by AGM (South) on 5.8.1992, Tmt. Nagalakshmi was eligible for new
telephone connection and Narayanaswamy (P.W.8), who was dealing with the
file, put up note to regularize the temporary line already available with
Tmt. Nagalakshmi and to close the temporary line and it was finally
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
approved by the Commercial Officer South (III) on 27.10.1992. On
28.10.1992, the telex message for closing the temporary connection in
respect of telephone No. 427112 provided to Tmt. Nagalakshmi and
simultaneously for providing permanent connection with the same telephone
number was transmitted to the officials concerned and though the temporary
telephone connection file had to go to the section dealing with new
permanent telephone connection, the temporary connection dealing with new
permanent connection was not sent to the section dealing with new permanent
connection till 9.11.1992. The accused came to know all the above movements
of file, passing orders, etc., through his brother Jayakumar (P.W.5) and
Narayanaswamy (P.W.8), who dealt with the said files and after knowing
about the application for release of new permanent telephone connection to
Tmt. Nagalakshmi went to her house on 6.11.92 and told her that if she is
prepared to pay Rs. 3000/- as bribe she would get a permanent connection,
otherwise the temporary connection would be disconnected. The accused also
informed her that he would come to her house on 9.11.1992 and at that time
Rs. 1500/- should be paid as advance and the balance of Rs.1500/- on
receipt of the allotment letter. The accused himself wrote a letter on
behalf of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and obtained signature of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and
then informed her that he would come to her house at about 7.00 p.m. on
9.11.1992.
Tmt. Nagalakshmi, who was not willing to pay the bribe to the accused,
requested her cousin to help in the matter, who on behalf of her sister,
lodged a written complaint on 9.11.1992 to the Superintendent of Police,
CBI, ACB Madras, and on the basis of which, the complaint was registered by
the Inspector of Police (P.W.4) and he made discrete enquiries, in which it
came to light that the accused was in the habit of demanding and accepting
illegal gratification from the subscribers, who in the normal course had
been allotted telephone connections, in the pretext of getting them new
telephone connections. Accordingly, a trap was held as directed by the said
Inspector of Police (P.W.4).
In the trap conducted by P.W.4 in the presence of Govindarajan (P.W.3),
Assistant Manager (vig), UIIC, Royapetah, Madras and one G. Sankaran, the
accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1500/- on 9.11.1992 from
Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the cousing of Tmt. Nagalakshmi at No.38, Mosque
Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting
permanent telephone connection under OYT. The amount was demanded at 8.05
p.m. on 9.11.1992 in the house of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and the accused was
caught red handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification.
Necessary test was conducted and mahazars were also prepared. The
proceedings after the acceptance of the bribe by the accused were video-
graphed by constable Nagarajan, using the departmental video camera. Then
the trap party proceeded to the house of the accused and as per the search
made, they recovered eleven diary sheets, out of which in one of the diary
sheets, the name of Tmt. Nagalakshmi was written. After obtaining sanction
order Ex.P-1 and completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
The trial court after considering all the evidence found the accused guilty
under the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded him punishment under
Section 7 of the Act by imposing the sentence of six months Rigorous
Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and a further sentence of six months
R.I in default of payment of fine. In addition the trial court also held
the appellant guilty under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and awarded him one year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default
of it further six months R.I.
In appeal the High Court after elaborate discussion of the evidence upheld
the judgment of the trial court.
From the facts on record, it is evident that the appellant was caught red
handed taking bribe and it appears that he was in the habit of demanding
and accepting illegal gratification from the subscribers. We, therefore,
see no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
Court or with the punishment awarded to accused.
There is no dispute that the sanction order was passed by the competent
authority.
Dr. A. Chelliah, learned counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that
the sanction order was vitiated as there was no material on which it could
have been passed. We do not agree.
In this connection, it may be mentioned that we cannot look into the
adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and
we cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. The order
granting sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before
the sanctioning authority who considered the same at great details. Only
because some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by itself,
in our opinion, would not vitiate the order of sanction. In fact in this
case there was abundant material before the sanctioning authority, and
hence we do not agree that the sanction order was in any way vitiated.
There is no merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed.