Back
1996 Supreme(Mad) 999
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ARUMUGHAM
D. Venkatasan - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1991
Decided On : 26 September 1996
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The evidence of the complainant and the trap witness must be corroborated. The sanction order for prosecution must be valid.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - [SECTION 7(3) AND 13(1)(D)(1) AND (2) READ WITH 13(2)] - DEMAND AND COMPLIANCE OF DEMAND BY GIVING BRIBE - CORROBORATION - SANCTION ORDER - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Sub Inspector of Police, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe from the complainant, who was involved in an accident. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded Rs. 500/- as a bribe to help him in the accident case, which was later reduced to Rs. 400/-. The complainant paid Rs. 150/- on the same day and the remaining amount in two installments on the following days. The appellant was caught in a trap set up by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police and was found with the bribe money in his possession. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 7(3) and 13(1)(d)(1) and (2) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The court held that the evidence of the complainant and the trap witness was not reliable and that there was no corroboration of their testimony. The court also found that the sanction order for prosecution was not valid as it was not passed in accordance with the laid down principles of law.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts? 2. Whether the evidence of the complainant and the trap witness is reliable? 3. Whether there is any corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and the trap witness? 4. Whether the sanction order for prosecution is valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 2. The evidence of the complainant and the trap witness is not reliable. 3. There is no corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and the trap witness. 4. The sanction order for prosecution is not valid.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted.
The above appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the IX Additional Special Judge, Madras in C.C. No. 7 of 1990 on 26-3-1991, whereunder, the appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 7(3 Courts) and 13(1)(d)(1) and (2) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under each count under Section 7, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under S. 13(1)(d)(1) and (2) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently
2. The appellant was working as Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, attached to Anna Square Police Station on the relevant day of occurrence in the case
One Mr. Ayub of Madras working as Accounts Assistant in Climax Agency, Nungambakkam, along with one Vijayaragavan a co-employee happened to travel in an auto-rickshaw from the State Bank Overseas Branch at the first like (sic) beach road to their office at Nungamkkam at about 1 p.m. on 22-7-1989, driven by P.W. 1 Agastih. The auto-rickshaw was bearing the registration mark M.M.R. 599. When they were approaching the Periyar Statue in Anna Salai after crossing Manroe statue, a Maruthi car came in the opposite direction and had a sudden turn towards Gimkhana club and to avoid the head on collision P.W. 1 applied the break of the auto-rickshaw, which became capsized upside down, with the result, both the passengers, P.W. 8 sustained the fracture of the bone in his right hand . This was followed by both the injured being taken to the Government Hospital . After the treatment, P.W. 1 and the driver of the Maruti car were taken to the Anna Square Police Station, where, it was stated that the accused/ appellant herein, had demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as bribe, to help him in the case, for which P.W. 1 was not agreeable as he was very poor but however, he had agreed for payment of Rs. 400/- and to bring the money P.W. 1 was sent out and the auto-rickshaw and its connected documents were retained in the Police Station itself When P.W. 1 tried to contact P.W. 2 kabali over phone he was not available and therefore, he approached P.W. 5 Thiagarajan at his house and got a sum of Rs. 150/-. Subsequently, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 had been to the Anna Square Police Station and took P.W. 1 on bail by giving a sum of Rs. 150/- to the accused by way of bribe. To return the R.C. Book the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 150/-. Then P.W. 1 approached P.W. 7 Perulal Patna, a Pawn Broker, at about 8 p.m. on that day and got a sum of Rs. 350/- by pledging his ring and the pledge receipt was marked as Ex. P. 1. On the next day, i.e. on 23-7-1989, P.W. 1 paid another sum of Rs. 150/- to the accused and consequently, the accused had instructed him to take the auto-rickshaw for brake test with the necessary form. Accordingly, it was taken to the Regional Transport Office, Cheput and Subjected to brake test but however, he was instructed to bring Rs. 100/- the balance at 8 p.m. on the next day after the brake test was over. On 24-7-1089 P.W. 3 Mr. Veerapandi, the Brake Inspector, inspected the vehicle brought by P.W. 1 and issued Ex. P. 5 certificate. P.W. 1 thought of reporting the whole matter to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police and consequently took P.W. 5 Mr. Thiagarajan to the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Mr. Nallama Naidu, examined as P.W. 12 and narrated the whole thing happened so far. On his instructions, he gave a written complaint to P.W. 13. P.W. 13 on the receipt of the said complaint, verified it with the complainant later registered it in Crime No. 10 of 1989 and took up the case
