Judgment :- (Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment in special C.C.No.2/1994 dated 10.6.1997 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore.) The appellant is the sole accused in Special C.C.No.2 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore. The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 10.6.1997 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which are to run concurrently, and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.3000/- for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) respectively of the Act, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months each. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was a Bill Collector in Samalapuram Town Panchayat; that he being the Public Servant, when P.W.2 Selvamani met the accused on 01.3.1993 in connection with the notice dated 18.02.1993 issued by the Executive Officer, Samalapuram Town Panchayat, demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as bribe, besides the water charges of Rs.360/-, stating that out of Rs.500/-, Rs.300/- is to be paid to the Executive Officer of the Town Panchayat and threatened that if the amount is not paid, the water connection given to him will be disconnected; that pursuant to the same, he received a sum of Rs.500/- from P.W.2 and also Rs.10/- as bribe amount and issued a receipt towards property tax for Rs.41.25 and out of Rs.50/-, he did not return the balance of Rs.8.75/-; and that the accused, in order to avoid disconnection of water supply and also to reduce the house tax as Rs.41.25, has totally received a sum of Rs.518.75/- by way of bribe and accordingly, the charge sheet has been filed against him after obtaining sanction from the Collector, P.W.1. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.31 were marked besides M.Os.1 to 9. 4. 3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.31 were marked besides M.Os.1 to 9. 4. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents produced, accepting the case of prosecution, came to the conclusion that the accused received a total sum of Rs.518.75/- towards reducing the property tax as Rs.41.25 and for avoiding disconnection of water supply to the house of P.W.2 and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused as set out above, which is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Heard Mr. S.K. Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent. 6. Mr. S.K. Krishnamoorthy, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that inasmuch as the accused is only a Bill Collector, he has no power to reduce the house tax or to disconnect water connection given to the house of P.W.2 and, therefore, the case of prosecution that the accused has demanded Rs.518.75 towards reduction of the house tax as Rs.41.25 and to avoid disconnection of water connection, is not acceptable. Though no specific stand is taken as per the appeal grounds, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that no proper sanction has been obtained for prosecuting the accused, that since the Collector P.W.1 is not the competent authority to grant sanction to prosecute the accused, the sanction order Ex.P.1 issued by him to prosecute the accused is not proper and, therefore, the conviction passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained. 7. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, submitted that since Ex.P.2 notice dated 18.02.1993 was served on P.W.2, he went to the office of the accused on 25.02.1993 during which time, the accused requested him to come after two or three days, since the officer concerned was on leave and that on 01.3.1993, when P.W.2 went to the office of the accused again, he demanded Rs.500/- as bribe from P.W.2 saying that Rs.300/- was to be given to the Executive Officer and Rs.200/- was for him and further stated that if the said amount is not paid within one week, the water connection given to his house will be disconnected. He further submitted that Since P.W.2 was not willing to pay the same, he gave complaint on 05.3.93 to the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and accordingly, a trap was laid. 8. In order to execute the trap, as pre-arranged, P.W.2 has given Rs.500/-, in the denomination of Rs.100/- currency notes numbering 5, to the accused, who has kept the same in his shirt pocket, in the presence of official witness, P.W.3. The accused has not returned the balance amount of Rs.8.75 out of Rs.50/- paid towards payment of house tax and also received a sum of Rs.10/-, in the denomination of Rs.5/- currency notes numbering two, and thus the accused has received the total bribe amount of Rs.518.75 from P.W.2. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the accused was caught red handed while receiving Rs.500/- from P.W.2, in which currency notes, phenolphthalein powder was applied, and when the currency notes and the hands of the appellant were dipped in two different Sodium Carbonate solutions, it revealed the change of colour to pink, which were also marked as Material Objects. The shirt of the accused also turned to pink when it was dipped in the solution. 9. P.W.3 is the trap witness. P.W.4 advised P.W.2 to approach the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption when P.W.2 informed him about the demand of bribe amount by the accused. P.Ws.5 to 9 have spoken about the demand of Rs.10/- by the accused from P.W.2. 10. According to the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), the trial Court, considering the evidence let in by the prosecution and also the exhibits marked, has rightly found the accused guilty. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that as per G.O.Ms.No.453 Rural Development Department dated 06.6.1986, the District Collector, being the appointing authority, is competent to initiate disciplinary action in respect of Head Clerks, Revenue Inspectors, Junior Assistants and Typists including Steno Typists working in the Town Panchayat and Panchayat Township. Therefore, the Collector, being the competent authority, has accorded sanction under Ex.P.1 to prosecute the accused, who was Bill Collector at the relevant period, and the same cannot be said to be improper and invalid and hence, the conviction of the accused is to be confirmed. 11. Therefore, the Collector, being the competent authority, has accorded sanction under Ex.P.1 to prosecute the accused, who was Bill Collector at the relevant period, and the same cannot be said to be improper and invalid and hence, the conviction of the accused is to be confirmed. 11. It is seen that as per the above said G.O., orders have been issued to the effect that in respect of the provincialising Head Clerks, Revenue Inspectors, Junior Assistants and Typists including Steno Typists working in the Town Panchayats and Panchayat Township, Collectors of the Districts are the appointing authorities and as such, they are the competent authorities to take disciplinary action in respect of the provincialised ministerial staff of the Town Panchayat. It is also seen that as per the G.O., the Directors of Town Panchayats and all Collectors were directed to issue instructions to all the Executive Officers under their control not to exercise disciplinary powers in respect of the provincialised staff of Town Panchayats. 12. As per G.O.Ms.No.800, Rural Development Department dated 16.12.1988, the post of Bill Collector comes under the category of Junior Assistant. Therefore, it is clear that inasmuch as the accused was the Bill Collector during the relevant time, i.e., in the year 1993, and since as per the above said G.O.Ms.No.453 Rural Development Department dated 06.6.1986, Collectors of the Districts are the appointing authorities in respect of the Bill Collectors of Town Panchayats, P.W.1 is the competent authority to take disciplinary action in respect of the accused, who was the Bill Collector in the category of Junior Assistant at that point of time. P.W.1, who was the Collector of Coimbatore District during the relevant period, after perusal of the entire records and after satisfying himself, accorded permission and sanction under Ex.P.1 to prosecute the accused. In fact, P.W.1, in his cross-examination, has stated that it is only the District Collector who is competent to remove the Bill Collector from the Town Panchayat and as such, he has taken disciplinary action against the accused. Therefore, there is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the entire prosecution case is vitiated and such a defence was also not taken before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the entire prosecution case is vitiated and such a defence was also not taken before the trial Court. As such, it is clear that there was proper sanction to prosecute the accused and the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that there was no proper sanction cannot be accepted. 13. The prosecution has let in clinching evidence through P.W.2 about the demand of bribe amount of Rs.500/- by the accused as Bill Collector of the Samlapuram Town Panchayat and also the threat made by him regarding the disconnection of water supply to his house for non-payment of arrears of water tax of Rs.360/-. The accused had also informed him that out of the bribe amount of Rs.500/-, Rs.300/- is to be paid to the Executive Officer of the Samalapuram Town Panchayat and he will get the remaining amount. 14. On 05.3.1993 P.W.2 went to the office of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Coimbatore District, and preferred the complaint Ex.P.4 on the basis of which a case was registered in Crime No.1/93/AC/CB under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and thereafter, the trap was laid by P.W.14 on 05.3.1993 at 4.45 pm in the presence of P.W.3 during which time, P.W.2 paid Rs.500/- to the accused besides Rs.360/- towards payment of water charges and at the time, when the accused received the bribe amount from P.W.2, he was caught red handed. It is further seen that out of the amount of Rs.50/- paid towards property tax, the accused did not return the balance amount of Rs.8.75 and he issued receipt only for a sum of Rs.41.25. Therefore, the accused has received a total sum of Rs.518.75 from P.W.2 by way of bribe. It is further seen that out of the amount of Rs.50/- paid towards property tax, the accused did not return the balance amount of Rs.8.75 and he issued receipt only for a sum of Rs.41.25. Therefore, the accused has received a total sum of Rs.518.75 from P.W.2 by way of bribe. The evidence of P.W.2 is also corroborated by P.W.14, Inspector of Police, that he gave Rs.500/-, in the denomination of Rs.100/- currency notes numbering five, which was borrowed by him from his friend one Subramanian, and after receiving the said currency notes, he typed the numbers of the same in the mahazar (Rs.100/- X 5), which are marked as M.O.1 series, and after observing all formalities, by applying phenolphthalein powder in M.O.1 series, dipped the same in Sodium Carbonate solution and sealed the same in bottle M.O.2 in which the signature of witnesses were obtained. 15. The case of the prosecution is well supported by the evidence of P.W.3, who was working as Superintendent in Housing Board, who has stated that on reaching the office of the accused, he asked P.W.2 in the office corridor as to whether he has brought the money demanded by him for which P.W.2 replied that he has brought the same. He further stated that the accused requested him to wait for sometime and after five minutes, he came and requested P.W.2 to come inside and P.W.2 went with him along with P.W.3. When the accused questioned about P.W.3, P.W.2 informed him that he is his sister's husband. P.W.3 gave him the amount towards payment of water tax to which the accused issued receipt and thereafter, the accused gave signal to P.W.2 by closing the fingers of his right hand and when P.W.2 requested the accused to reduce the amount, he replied that the amount cannot be reduced and if the amount is to be reduced, then amount towards house tax will be enhanced. Thereafter, P.W.2 took Rs.500/-, M.O.1 series currency notes in the denomination of Rs.100/- numbering five, from his left side shirt pocket and gave it to the accused and the accused, after counting, kept the same in the front pocket of his shirt. The further evidence of P.W.3 is that when P.W.2 paid Rs.50/- towards payment of house tax, the accused issued receipt only for Rs.41.25 and he did not return the balance amount of Rs.8.75. The further evidence of P.W.3 is that when P.W.2 paid Rs.50/- towards payment of house tax, the accused issued receipt only for Rs.41.25 and he did not return the balance amount of Rs.8.75. Besides, P.W.2 paid a sum of Rs.10/- as bribe on demand by the accused. P.W.12 also gave report Ex.P.26 dated 26.3.1993 to the effect that M.Os. 2 to 7 contained the solution mixed with phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate and as such, it is clear that the amount recovered from the accused, while receiving the payment for water tax to the house of P.W.2, is the bribe amount paid by P.W.2 for reducing the half yearly house tax. 16. The accused was Bill Collector in Samalapuram Town Panchayat and as such, he was a public servant. He demanded bribe amount from P.W.2 and while he received the same from P.W.2, he was caught red handed in the trap laid by P.W.14, Inspector of Police, in the presence of P.W.3 and the amount M.O.1 series was also recovered under mahazar Ex.P.5. The accused has also not accounted for the amount, which was recovered from him, and in fact, when he received the amount from P.W.2, he was caught red handed in the presence of P.W.3. Therefore, inference is to be drawn that the accused accepted the money, which came to his possession on receiving the same from P.W.2 as demanded by him earlier. P.W.14, after completing all formalities, put the hands of the accused to phenolphthalein test in which his hands turned pink and it proves that the accused received the amount bearing the same currency numbers as noted in the mahazar under Ex.P.5 by P.W.14, which were given to him by P.W.2. The trial Court, considering all these aspects, rightly found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as set out above, which do not call for any interference and are confirmed. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.6.1997 imposed on the accused in Special C.C.No.2 of 1994 by the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Judge, Coimbatore, are confirmed. The bail bond executed by the accused is cancelled. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.6.1997 imposed on the accused in Special C.C.No.2 of 1994 by the I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate / Special Judge, Coimbatore, are confirmed. The bail bond executed by the accused is cancelled. The I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Coimbatore, is required to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.