SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(SC) 909

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Subbu Singh
Versus
State by Public Prosecutor
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.402 OF 2002
Decided on : 04-05-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, K.V. Visanathan, B. Raghunath, Abhishek Kaushik, Vijay Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondent:S. Thananjayan, Advocate.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 r/w 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and Section 20 - Demand and acceptance of bribe money by Police Officer-Reversal of acquittal by High Court - Once there is a presumption as contemplated u/s 20, it is for accused to establish that amount was not received as bribe - Accused was a police officer who knew consequences of bribe - He had not explained as to why he took up money in his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. - Possibility of appellant counting money with help of right hand cannot be ruled out - Once it is proved by prosecution that money was demanded as bribe and same was received from PW-1 Section 20 comes into play - Since minimum sentence has been imposed there is no scope of interference with same - Appeal dismissed. (Paras 3, 9, 12, 13 and 14)

Judgment :

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Erode, Tamil Nadu. Appellant faced trial alongwith one Rajappan. The appellant faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the `Act). The trial court directed acquittal of both the accused persons. The High Court upheld the acquittal so far as the co-accused is concerned, but set aside the judgment of acquittal and directed conviction for the appellant for charged offences. The minimum sentence of six months and fine with default stipulation for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and one years rigorous imprisonment with fine with default stipulation for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act were awarded.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Subbusingh (Al), the appellant was working as Sub Inspector of Police at Sathiyamangalam Police Station. Rajappan (A2), is the friend of Al. There was a land dispute between Renga Naicker (P. W.4) and Thippa Naicker (P.W.21). Both of them quarreled with each other on 6.7.1991. Nagarajan (P.W.5), relative of P.W.4 came to the Sathiyamangalam Police Station and complained to Al Sub Inspector of Police orally against P.W.21. Al directed the Police constables P.W.11 and P.W.12 to go the spot to bring P.W.21. Accordingly, they went to the scene of occurrence and found that P.W.21 was lying down with injuries. The Constables took the injured and others to the Police Station.

In the meantime, Selvan (P.W.2), brother-in-law of P.W.21 followed them to the Police Station. Since the injured P.W.21 was not taken to the hospital, P.W.2 requested A1 to send him to hospital. As, permitted by Al, the injured was taken in an Auto to a private hospital run by Dr. Thangavel (P.W. 10). After taking injection from the hospital, PW 21 and others came back to Police Station. P. W.2 was asked to come back in the evening.

Accordingly, P.W.2 went to the Police Station at 5.00 P.M. At that time, the Police obtained Muchalika from both the sides stating that they would settle the matter by approaching the Civil Court. Then, Al directed P.W.21 and others to wait outside the Police Station and act as per the instructions of one A2 who is the friend of A 1.

Within a few minutes, A2 came and informed P.W.2 that Al had asked him to get Rs.500/- from them. Natarajan (P.W.22), son of P. W.21 told that he was having only Rs.100/-. A2 after getting instruction from Al asked them to give Rs.100/-. P.W.22 told A2 that Rs.100/- was required to buy medicine. Then, A2 told them that he would give Rs.100/- from his pocket and handed over the same on behalf of P.W.21 at nearby bangle shop where P.W.8 was doing business. A2 directed him to bring Rs.100/-and another Rs.400/- being the balance to be paid to Al. Then, they were allowed to go.

On 7.7 1991 Al visited the land and gave the message that both PWs. 2 & 4 should meet him in the evening. PW2 met Al at about 5.00 P.M. in the Police Station. At that time, Al asked him whether he had brought the amount and PW2 told him that the money was not ready. Al told him that already the amount of Rs.100/- was received through shop owner and balance amount of Rs.400/-should be paid, or otherwise he would put up a case against P.W.21 on the complaint of PW5 PW 2 told him that he would bring on 12.7.1991. Then PW2 informed this to PW21.

Since PW2 did not want to give bribe he gave a complaint Ex.P2 to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance (PW26) on 11.7.1991 at about 4.30 PM. P.W.2 was asked to come to the Vigilance Office next day. In the meantime, P.W.26 requested the assistance from Manokaran (P.W.3) and one Jagadeesan, working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity hoar






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top