Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
P. Sanjeevi
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment Central Bureau of Investigation
Crl. A. No.1113 of 1998
Decided On : 20-03-2007
The accused, a lineman, was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant to restore a disconnected telephone connection. The accused challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the validity of the sanction for prosecution, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the legality of the conviction under both Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a lineman in the telephone department, was caught red-handed while receiving a bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant to restore a disconnected telephone connection. The complainant had filed a complaint with the police, and a trap was laid to catch the accused. The accused was arrested and charged under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but set aside the conviction under Section 7 of the Act. The court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid and that the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the court held that the accused could not be convicted under both Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act, as the two offenses were essentially the same.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid? 2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt? 3. Whether the accused could be convicted under both Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid because it was issued by a competent authority and there was no evidence that the authority had acted in a mala fide manner. 2. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainant's testimony was corroborated by the testimony of independent witnesses and the chemical analysis report. 3. The court held that the accused could not be convicted under both Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, because the two offenses were essentially the same.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but set aside the conviction under Section 7 of the Act. The court also reduced the sentence of the accused from two years to one year.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C.C.No.206 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. The accused has been charged under section 7 and also under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against the accused is that he being a public servant as lineman at Anna Road, RSU Telephone Exchange, Madras Talephone, directly demanded and accepted from the complainant viz. Shri J.Gnanasekaran on 28.06.1996 at about 1.40 pm at Madras a sum of Rs.300/-as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for repairing the faults in his telephone bearing indicator No.8547095 and hence committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the same day at the same time and in the same transaction by corrupt or illegal means otherwise abusing your official position as such public servant obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.300/-from Shri.J.Gnanasekaran for repairing his fault telephone bearing No.8547095 and thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case was taken on file as C.C.No.206/1997 by the 11th Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Madras. On appearance of the accused on summons, the learned trial judge has furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. On the side of the Prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 were exhibited and M.O.1 to M.O.17 were marked.
3. P.W.1 is the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Madras Telephones, Chenai. During 1996 he was working as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Chennai Telephones. The accused Sanjeevi was working as lineman in the same department as Class IV employee. According to P.W.1, he is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the accused. P & T Manual Volume III, Part VII empowering the Sub-Divisional Engineer who is Group B Officer to appoint, to take disciplinary action and to remove from service Class IV employees (Group D). The copy of the above said notification is Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the sanction order for prosecution of the accused passed by P.W.1. P.W.1 would depose that before issuing sanction order he had perused the complaint and report and FIR and other documents pertaining to the statements of the witnesses etc. after applying his mind on perusing the said documents and relevant records and after getting himself satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, he (P.W.1) had accorded sanction under Ex.P.2.
4. 4(1) P.W.2-Gnanasekaran, the complainant, would depose that he is indulging in taking orders in off-set printings. During 1996, he was having his business at Door No.49, 2nd street, Pudupet, Chennai. The telephone indicator number for the said premises is 8547095. The said telephone indicator number was assigned to him in the month of April. On 26. 1996 he went to his office as usual. At that time he found the telephone line was snapped and the wire was kept in a roll. He was informed by the occupants of the upstairs portion that a lineman along with two persons came from Anna Road Telephone Exchange and snapped the telephone wire and that they also informed him (P.W.2) to go and meet in their office. Immediately P.W.2 has rushed to the telephone exchange office and enquired about the whereabouts of the lineman, where he was informed that the person who gave the connection for his telephone alone had disconnected the same. In spite of his(P.W.2) effective search he could not find the said lineman who had snapped the telephone connection. Hence, he preferred a complaint to the telephone exchange.
4(2) In the Officer they assured to get the repair done by the very next day. But has assured no one turned up on 26. 1996. So he (P.W.2) went to the telephone exchange once again on 26. 1996 and met the lineman, the accused Sanjeevi, in the telephone exchange and when he
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
