Full Judgment Text
CRLA No. 4 of 2004
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2004
C. MANICKAM ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. The appellant herein, Manickam and his co-accused
were working as Office Assistants in the Office of the
Assistant Commissioner (Enforcement), Commercial Tax, Salem
during the relevant period. P.W. 1 -Nazer Sherif along
with seven partners was running his business in the name of
Ragam Ready Mades at Cherry Road, Salem. The business was
also registered with the Commercial Tax Officer as per
certificates, Exhibits P5 and P6. At about 1:30p.m., on
th
10 November, 1989, both the accused came to the shop of
P.W. 1 and demanded Rs. 100/- as Deepavali Inam. P.W. 1
expressed his inability to pay the amount on which he was
threatened with dire consequences. Under this
circumstance, P.W. 1 promised to pay up and an entry was
made at page No. 25 in the note book Exhibit P1 maintained
by the two accused. Both the accused again came to the
rd
shop on 23 November, 1989 and this time along with P.W. 1
CRLA No. 4 of 2004
2
his father P.W. 5 Ahamed Sherif was also present in the
shop. The accused again demanded the sum of Rs. 100/-.
P.W. 1 further told them that his partners were not
agreeing to pay Rs. 100/- and he, accordingly, refused to
pay the amount. The accused again threatened P.W. 1 that
if he did not pay up he would repent later and that they
th
would return on 27 November, 1989 at 6:00p.m. to take the
money. P.W. 1 thereafter lodged a complaint Exhibit P2
before P.W. 10 Asokan, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance
Department, Salem at about 3:00p.m. P.W. 10 made the
necessary preliminary arrangements and also secured the
service of P.W. 7 to act as a shadow witness. At about
6:45p.m., the two accused came to the shop of P.W. 1 and
stood in front of the cash counter and again reiterated the
demand for Rs. 100/-. P.W. 1 thereupon took out two notes
of Rs. 50/- and handed them over to A1, who put the same in
his bag. A1 also enquired as to the identify of P.W. 2 and
he was told that he was one of the partners in the
business. At about 6:50 p.m. P.W. 1 gave the pre-arranged
signal to P.W. 10 by folding the sleeves of his shirt.
P.W. 10 rushed to the spot and seized the tainted money
and also carried out the phenolphthalein test on A1. The
said test proved positive as the solution turned pink. On
the completion of the investigation, the accused were
CRLA No. 4 of 2004
3
charged for offence punishable under Sections 7, 32 read
with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
2. The trial court on a consideration of the evidence
of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 who had seen the passing of the
tainted money and P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 to the effect that the
phenolphthalein test on A1 was positive and further relying
th
on the entry dated 10 November, 1989 in the note book
Exhibit P1, convicted and sentenced the accused for the
offences charged. The conviction was maintained by the
High Court in appeal for the same reasons. The matter was
thereafter brought to this Court and whereas the Special
Leave Petition qua A1 – S.K. Natesan, was dismissed leave
has been granted qua A2 Manickam.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in
length.
4. Mr. V.J. Francis, learned counsel for the appellant
has pointed out that the case of A1 and the appellant was
substantially different inasmuch as that no recovery had
been made from the person of the appellant and that the
phenolphthalein test had not been carried out in his hands
as he had not handled the money and in this view of the
matter, the ocular evidence relied upon by the prosecution
could not prove the case against him. The learned State
CRLA No. 4 of 2004
4
counsel has, however, pointed out that the appellant had
accompanied his co-accused to the shop of P.W. 1 on three
th nd
different occasions on 10 November, 1989, 22 November,
th
1989 and again on 27 November, 1989 and on the last two
dates, P.W. 5 and P.W. 2 had also been present in addition
to P.W. 1. It has been submitted that the perusal of the
evidence of P.W. 1 would also indicate that when he had
refused to make the payment it was the appellant herein who
had held out the most serious threats.
5. It is true that the recovery has been made from the
bag carried by the co-accused and the phenolphthalein test
also carried out on his hands. However, in the face of the
other evidence, already alluded to above, that is of P.W.
2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 and the diary Ex.P1 we find that that
the appellant also stands inculpated. We also see that it
is not the prosecution's case that the appellant had ever
handled the tainted money. In this view of the matter the
argument that as the phenolphthalein test had not been
carried out on the appellant, the recovery cannot be
foisted on him, cannot be accepted. We also see that the
courts below have on a very clear cut discussion of the
evidence and relying on the evidence of the four witnesses
mentioned above as well as the evidence of P.W. 10 the
CRLA No. 4 of 2004
5
Investigating Officer have found that the appellant and his
co-accused were equally involved in the incident.
6. We thus find no merit in the appeal which is,
accordingly, dismissed.
........................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
........................J
[CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 18, 2010.