Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.
D. VELAYUTHAM – APPELLANT
VS.
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, CHENNAI – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.787 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.788 of 2011
Decided on: 10-03-2015
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 and 13 r/w Sections 133 and 114 (b) of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Evidence of co-accomplice – Trap/decoy witness – Accused 1 not present at the execution of the trap – Denying any demand and acceptance of bribe – Original demand notice issued to complainant recalled – Appellant issuing second notice issued by Appellant 1 held illegal by courts below being vexatious – Trap/decoy witness not always interested witness – In case of multiple demanders it is open to prosecution to establish constructive demand and acceptance – No infirmity in conviction of Appellant 1. (Para 5, 9, 10, 14, 17)
(1995) 3 SCC 351; AIR 1958 SC 500 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Appellants were convicted and sentenced u/s 67 and 13 of the PC Act, 1988.
The High Court set aside the conviction of Accused 1 under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but upheld Accused 2’s conviction thereunder; and affirmed the conviction of both Accused 1 and Accused 2 but reducing their sentence under Section 120B, IPC, and Section 7 of the PC Act, to imprisonment of one year each.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in conviction of the appellants.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key facts are as follows:
The case involves allegations of corruption and bribery against two officers employed in a Central Excise department, with the appellant being D. Velayutham and the respondent the Inspector of Police, Salem Town. The two accused held the ranks of Superintendent and Inspector of Excise, respectively. The complainant, a manufacturer, received a show cause notice for excise duty, which was later recalled after an enquiry. Subsequently, a second show cause notice demanding a higher amount was issued, which the complainant believed was linked to a demand for a bribe.
The complainant reported to the police that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 1000 from each of them, to be paid on the same day. The police set up a trap, during which the complainant handed over currency notes to the accused, which were smeared with phenolphthalein to detect acceptance of bribe. The accused accepted the bribe, with the second accused handling the money and being subjected to a chemical test that confirmed contact with the notes.
The first accused was not present during the trap, as he had left the office for personal reasons, but his absence did not exonerate him. The evidence indicated that the second accused accepted the bribe on behalf of both officers, and there was a legal discussion on the possibility of constructive receipt of bribes in cases involving multiple demanders.
The courts examined the credibility of witnesses, including the trap witness and the complainant, and considered the legality of the second show cause notice issued by the first accused. The courts ultimately upheld the conviction of both accused, emphasizing that the evidence supported their involvement in the corrupt act, and dismissed the appeals, ordering the accused to serve their sentences.
Judgment
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. These two Appeals before us assail the common Judgment dated 8.9.2010 of the Madras High Court which only partly allowed the Appeals before it, in favour of the Accused-Appellants. The Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 787/2011 is the First Accused; Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 788/2011 is the Second Accused. The High Court partly allowed both Appeals, setting aside the conviction of Accused 1 under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whilst upholding Accused 2’s conviction thereunder; and affirming the conviction of both Accused 1 and Accused 2 but reducing their sentence under Section 120B, IPC, and Section 7 of the PC Act, to imprisonment of one year each.
2. Recapitulating the facts leading up to these Appeals, Accused 1 and Accused 2 were, at the time of the perpetrations, employed as officers with Central Excise IX ‘E’ Range. Accused 1 held the rank of Superintendent, and Accused 2, his subordinate, Inspector of Excise in the same office. The Complainant (PW2 before the Trial Court), a manufacturer of ‘camel back rubber slab’, received a show cause notice for payment of Excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,01,333/-. PW2 attended an enquiry held before the Assistant Commissioner (PW4) of Central Excise, on 07.20.1996; the notice was recalled following this Enquiry. Thereafter, PW2 received yet another show cause notice, dated 24.05.1996, issued by Accused 1 as its signatory, demanding ‘difference amounts’ (as recorded by the Trial Court) of Rs. 1,23,193/-. PW2 visited the office of both Accused on 04.06.1996 at 11:30 am, where he met both Accused 1 and Accused 2. Upon questioning the Accused persons about the second notice, PW2 was confronted with a bribe demand from Accused 1 of Rs.1000/- for each Accused whereto Accused 2 concurred. The bribe demanded was to be paid by PW2 to both Accused on the same day, at 4:30 pm. PW2 immediately thereafter went to the office of the Superintendent of Police and reported this illegality, whereupon PW6, the Inspector, prepared a trap. As was planned, PW2 handed over to PW6 currency notes totalling Rs. 2000, in presence of two independent witnesses, PW3 and another. PW6 explained to PW2 the working of the Sodium Carbonate test characteristic of trap cases, and proceeded to smear the notes (M.O.1 currency series) with phenolphthalein powder, before returning them to PW2, who placed them in his shirt pocket. An entrustment mahazar was prepared. PW2 was instructed to signal the trap team upon handing over the notes to the Accused, and PW3 was instructed to accompany him and witness this receipt of the illegal gratification. PW2 went to the office cabin of Accused 1, who was not to be found present there, but on encountering Accused 2, PW2 was told by him that Accused 1 had shortly earlier left the office, to visit his indisposed wife. Accused 2 told PW2 that he had been instructed by Accused 1 to collect the moneys on behalf of them both. PW2 handed over the currency notes to Accused 2, who then handled these with both hands, and placed them in his shirt pocket. PW3 witnessed the transaction, having stood alongside PW2. PW2 walked out of the office and signalled to the trap team, whereupon PW6 entered the office and subjected Accused 2 to the sodium carbonate solution test, which tested affirmative, both hands of Accused 2 having been dipped in the solution, turning it pink. Accused 2 was then directed by PW6 to return the notes, which he did, by first going into Accused 1’s office, and, thereafter back to his own desk, where the currency notes had been kept inside his right drawer. The currency notes were then surrendered to PW6. A mahazar was prepared, the incriminating property seized, and two witnesses signed the mahazar. Accused 1 was subsequently arrested.
3. Both Accused were charged with offences under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, namely, Section 120-B, IPC, read with Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Sec
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
