High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. SUDANTHIRAM
L. Boopathi
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police ACB/CBI
Criminal Appeal No.124 of 2001
Decided on: 09-07-2008
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 - Section 7, 11, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a CBI Inspector, was convicted for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe and seized valuable items from the complainant's house without record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on the recovery of the seized items from the appellant's locker and positive phenolphthalein test for the bribe amount.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the complainant's evidence, the legality of the seizure from the locker, and the delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery of seized items from the appellant's locker and positive phenolphthalein test were crucial in establishing the appellant's guilt. The delay in filing the complaint was deemed reasonable given the complainant's circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the appellant's sentence.
1. This appellant stands convicted by the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases in C.C.No.203 of 1997 for offences under Section 7,11 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 7 and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the sentence was ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant had preferred this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at the time of occurrence, the accused was the Inspector of Police, CBI and he was posted at CBI Office at Sasthri Bhavan, Chennai. The CBI registered a case against the officials of Hindustan Photo Films, in R.C.No.31(A)/94 on 29.07.1994, in which P.W.2 also was one of the accused and searches were conducted. P.W.8, the Inspector of Police, CBI was the Investigating Officer in that case and he obtained a search warrant on 20.09.1994 from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. P.W.2 was the retired General Manager of Hindustan Photo Films and it was decided to conduct search of the residential premises. P.W.8 made an endorsement in the search warrant and nominated the Inspector of Police, Boopathy who is the accused in this case to conduct the search of the house of P.W.2. P.W.8 went to Hydrabad to make search of some places in connection with the same case. The accused Boopapathy went to Anandathandavapuram on 010. 1994 for conducting searches at the residence of P.W.2 Mr. Ramamurthy. P.W.4 who was the Assistant Manager of Indian Overseas Bank at Mayiladuthurai and another Assistant Manager Mr.Swaminathan were requested to accompany the accused and Boopathy to stand as a witness for this search. All of them went in a Car and the house of P.W.2 was searched from 9.00a.m to 5.00p.m and 11 items of documents were seized and the search list Ex.P.3 was also prepared. As per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.8, 11 items of documents were seized for the purpose of investigation. According to the evidence of P.W.2, an inventory was prepared for 38 items which were found in the house. Ex.P.2 contained three pages and P.W.2 signed in all the three pages. The accused Boopathy also taken the keys of the lockers at City Union Bank and P.W.2 was not given any receipt for that. On the next day at 010. 1994 at about 10.45a.m, the accused Boopathy, the said Swaminathan and instead of P.W.4, Valliappan another witness P.W.5 Viswanathan along with the Police Constable Ravikumar went to his house in a Taxi. Then all of them along with P.W.2 went to Sivan temple. From there they went to Mayiladuthurai and reached the City Union Bank at 11.10a.m. The bank locker was opened and an inventory was prepared in which the witnesses and the bank Manager signed. Then they all went to the Bank of Baroda and the locker was opened and nothing was found in the locker. Then all of them went to Indian Overseas Bank. P.W.2 was in his Car and others went inside the bank. After 10 minutes, the accused only returned and he was holding a blank search list. The accused Boopathy showed it to P.W.2 and told that he had obtained the signatures of the witnesses Swaminathan and Valliappan and he had to make certain changes. Then accused and P.W.2 went to the house of P.W.2 and reached the house at 4.30p.m. Then the accused took P.W.2 to the safety room in the house and sitting in a chair, the accused asked P.W.2 to take out the jewel box from the Godrej Bureau. P.W.2 took the jewel box and kept it on the
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.