Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Subbiah, J.
State —Appellant
versus
Manoharan —Respondent
Crl.A.No.275 of 2015
Decided on 7.6.2016
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant: Mr. P. Govindarajan, APP
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Haroon-AL-Rasheed for
M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d)(ii)—Accused working as Junior Engineer in State Electricity Board accepted Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification for providing electricity connection for shopping complex of defacto complainant—Accused was caught in the trap arranged by Police, Anti-corruption wing—Acquittal by trial court—State appeal—Defacto complainant though supported the case in examination-in-chief but in cross-examination which was conducted after four years gave contradictory statement that money was given by him to accused towards repayment of outstanding loan amount—Pw 3-4, witnesses of trap proceedings admitted in cross-examination that accused when examined soon after trap proceedings took a plea that amount received by him was towards repayment of loan—Other evidence of prosecution did not inspire confidence—No interference was warranted.
Held: Irrespective of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the opinion that there is no doubt that the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/accused is a formidable argument. As contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there was a delay of four years in cross-examining P.W.2. At the same time, I am of the opinion that irrespective of the delay in cross-examining P.W.2, the other evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court, thereby warranting this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal at this distant point of time. In fact, there is contradiction in the case of the prosecution with regard to the date of lodging of the complaint. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused that from Ex.P-2 complaint, it is seen that the date of compliant and registering of complaint was on 31.05.2005. But, in the evidence of P.W.2, during his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that he gave complaint to E.B. authorities on 22.05.2005 and to the Vigilance Police on 27.05.2005. This is much earlier to the handing over of the sum of Rs.500/- by P.W.2 to the respondent/accused as the alleged illegal gratification on 31.05.2005.
Thus, taking into consideration the various contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as discussed above, with regard to the payment of outstanding loan amount by P.W.2, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.500/-. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondent/accused and as observed above, since the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not inspiring the confidence of this Court, absolutely, I do not find any compelling circumstances warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by this Court at this distant point of time. Hence, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed, confirming the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. (Paras 13 and 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
R. Subbiah, J.—This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused in Special Case No.1 of 2006, dated 09.06.2014 on the file of the Special-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Vellore. The respondent/accused has been acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. in respect of the charges framed against him for the alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Before going into the details of the evidence, the brief case of the prosecution is stated hereunder:
The respondent/accused was working as Junior Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tharapadavedu, Katpadi, Vellore District. The de-facto complainat (who was examined as P.W.2 before the trial Court) initially approached the respondent/accused on 25.05.2005 seeking electricity service connection for his shopping complex, by submitting an application with fees of Rs. 50/-, for which, receipt was also issued. Subsequently, again on 27.05.2015, the de-facto complainant approached the accused for the same request, for which, the respondent/accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/-. Hence, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police (who was examined as P.W.15), Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore. P.W.15 registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2005 on 31.05.2005 at 06.30 hours for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As the de-facto complainant agreed to co-operate for arranging a trap as against the respondent/accused, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Vellore arranged for a trap, after observing the required formalities. In the said trap, it was elicited that the respondent/accused demanded and accepted Rs. 500/- as bribe from the de-facto complainant at about 10.30 a.m. in the presence of official witness, namely Mr.C.Karthikeyan, Deputy Inspector of Local Audit Department, Vellore and Mr.S.R.Balaji, Agriculture Officer, Office of the Joint Director of Agriculture, Vellore. Thereafter, the respondent/accused was arrested at about 12.30 hours on the same day. After completion of the detailed investigation and based on the materials available on record, the investigating officer laid the charge-sheet against the respondent/accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge-sheet/final report was taken on file by the trial Court in Special Case No.1 of 2006 (Crime No.3 of 2005).
3. In order to prove their case, during the course of trial, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses, marked 21 documents and exhibited 7 material objects.
4. When the respondent/accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime. He did not examine any witness, but marked only one exhibit.
5. Upon hearing the submissions of either side and considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the above said charges levelled against him. Challenging the said judgment of acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/State submitted that P.W.2/de-facto complainant approached the respondent/accused, who was working as Junior Engineer, seeking electricity service connection for his shopping complex, for which, the accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500/-, which resulted in filing of the complaint/Ex.P-2 by P.W.2/de-facto complainant before P.W.15 the then Inspector of Police, which was registered in Crime No.3 of 2005 at about 06.30 hours. As the de-facto complainant agreed for co-operating in laying the trap, the trap was laid on 31.05.2005, and at that time, the respondent/accused demanded Rs.500/- as bribe at about 10.30 a.m. in the presence of the official witnesses, which resulted in arresting the respondent/accused on the same
