Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4279
High Court of Judicature at Madras
ARUNA JAGADEESAN, J.
R. Gunalan & Another
Versus
The State by Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department
Crl.A.Nos. 372 & 359 of 2006
Decided on : 20-10-2011
For the Appellants:B. Sriramulu, SC for N. Mohideen Basha, N. Manoharan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: R. Prathapkumar, GA (Crl. Side).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborative evidence in trap cases and the necessity for proper sanctioning procedures under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the demand and acceptance of bribe under Sections 7, 13(2), and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The key legal provisions were interpreted in light of the evidence presented and the court's analysis influenced the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for demanding and accepting bribes in relation to rectification of land records. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses and the trap laid by the Vigilance Cell.
Finding of the Court:
The court found contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, raising doubts about the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court also highlighted procedural irregularities in the sanctioning process.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the timing of the complaint, and the validity of the sanctioning process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence in trap cases and the importance of proper sanctioning procedures. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
1. These Criminal Appeals are filed by the appellants/A1 and A2 in CC.No.44/2001 against the judgement dated 12.04.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, convicting and sentencing each of the appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that the Appellant/A1 was working as a Senior Draftsman at Taluk Office, Gopichettipalayam and the Appellant/A2 was working as a Firka Surveyor at Vaniputhur Firka in the year 1999. The complainant S.P.Chennimalai Goundar is an agriculturist, a resident of Kanchanoor Village and a close friend of PW.4 Lawrence. He was looking after the lands of PW.4, which stood in the name of his wife Josephine Anthoniammal. She owned an extent of 76 cents of wet lands, out of which, an extent of 3 cents had been sold to one Elangovan, PW.5 and four others on 22.6.1998 under Ex.P12 registered sale deed. While making sub division and when the lands were measured, A2 said to have committed a mistake by allotting 4 ½ cents in the sub division, which was detected by the Village Administrative Officer Indrani PW.7, who in turn informed the matter to PW.2. Thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue Inspector, A2 had assured to rectify the mistake.
3. After coming to know of the said mistake, Josephine Anthoniammal submitted a petition dated 26.02.1999 to the Tahsildar, Gopichettipalayam to rectify the mistake. As there was no response till the end of May 1999, PW.4 along with PW.2 met A2 on 08.06.1999 and came to know that the file was pending with A1. Later, PW.2 and PW.4 along with A2 met A1 on 08.06.1999 and requested for issuance of rectification order, for which according to the Prosecution, A1 and A2 have demanded Rs.1000/- and Rs.500/- respectively towards illegal gratification. As PW.2 and PW.4 had no money at that time, they were asked to bring the money to their Office on 11.06.1999. PW.2 and PW.4 were not willing to pay the bribe to A1 and A2 and therefore, they decided to give a complaint to the Vigilance Cell.
4. Accordingly, after three days, i.e. on 11.06.1999, PW.2 gave a complaint Ex.P3 to the Vigilance Cell, based on which, PW.14 laid the trap. PW.14 arranged the trap and after following the usual procedure of handing over the bribe amount to the complainant PW.2 in the presence of PW.3 Abdul Khani, an Officer in the Horticulture Department and one Ponnusamy, Assistant Engineer, TWAD instructed PW.2 to pay the amount of bribe to the Appellants only on their demand. The complainant was earlier shown the demonstration on the effect of phenolphthalein powder in the presence of PW.3. He was also given instructions as to how to give the pre-arranged signal after the trap to the raiding party. The pre-trap mahazar Ex.P5 was accordingly made.
5. Thereafter, PW.2, PW.3, PW.14 and Ponnusamy went to the Gopichettipalayam Taluk Office. PW.2 and PW.3 went inside the Taluk Office and informed the Appellants that PW.2 had brought Rs.1500/- . A2 asked PW.2 to pay the amount to A1. On receiving the money, A1 counted it and put it in the table drawer. The pre-arranged signal was then given by PW.2 to the raiding party and the raiding party came inside and recovered the money from A1. However, there was no recovery from A2. Necessary chemical test was conducted and PW.14 prepared a mahazar, a sketch and a search list. Thereafter, PW.15 took up further investigation and after obtaining sanction, charge sheet was laid against the Appellants/A1 and A2.
6. The Appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and their defence was one of denial. The Appellant/A1 submitted a separate statement along with 313 Statement. At the trial, the Prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses, but the evidence of the following witnesses
