Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1081
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. MALA, J.
State Represented by the Inspector of Police – Appellant
Versus
V.R. Murali – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2011
Decided On : 25-02-2015
For the Appellant:V. Arul, Government Advocate.
For the Respondent:S. Wilson, Senior Counsel for T.K.S. Gandhi, Advocate.
Proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is vital for securing a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) - The judgment discusses the competency of the sanctioning authority, the trap laying officer, and the testimony of hostile witnesses. It also emphasizes the need for proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for securing a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused, an Assistant Executive Engineer, demanded illegal gratification for expediting a service connection. The trial court acquitted the accused based on the lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the competency of the sanctioning authority and the trap laying officer. It also noted that the testimony of the hostile witness needed corroboration, and the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Competency of the sanctioning authority and trap laying officer, testimony of hostile witnesses, and proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification for securing a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It also highlighted the importance of corroborating the testimony of hostile witnesses and the requirement for independent and reliable corroborative evidence.
Final Decision: The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
R. Mala, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 22.10.2008 in C.C.No.8/2006 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
(i) P.W.2/Sivakumar/Complainant went to the office of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter called as “T.N.E.B.), T.Nagar for changing single phase connection to three phase connection for the house bearing Old Door No.2/2, New No.5, Chakrapani Street, West Mambalam, which belongs to his wife Chitra. On 29.04.2005, P.W.2 approached the accused, who was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer and gave Ex.P2 application to him and the accused prepared Ex.P10 estimate and Ex.P3 advice slip for Rs.12,423/- and he was directed to pay the same within a week. Then P.W.2 asked the accused to finish the work early and the accused told that if he would pay the amount, the work will be done early. On 02.05.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.2 went to E.B. office to pay the bill at that time, a person who was there told that there is scarcity of materials in the E.B. and if his work should be done, he has to intimate the same before the Vigilance office. Therefore, P.W.2 went to Vigilance and Anti-corruption office on 04.05.2005 and preferred a complaint Ex.P4.
(ii) On enquiry, P.W.7/Valsaraj, Deputy Superintendent of Police directed P.W.8/ Prabaharan, Inspector of Police to proceed the case and he made an endorsement in Ex.P4, which was marked as Ex.P13.
(iii) P.W.8/Prabaharan, Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 12/ AC/2005/CC-II for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prepared Ex.P14 F.I.R. Then he made an arrangement for trap proceedings, for which, P.W.7 sent two witnesses from Government office namely, P.W.4/Lakshmana Kumar and one Rajendran and explained trap proceedings.
(iv) On 05.05.2005 in the presence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and Rajendran, P.W.8 prepared Ex.P8/entrustment mahazar. As per the instructions of P.W.8, P.W.2 as well as P.W.4 accompanied with police officials went to the office of T.N.E.B., T.Nagar. P.W.8 directed P.W.2 to give signal to the police, after demand and gave money. At 10.45 a.m., P.W.2 after giving money to the accused, came outside and made signal to the police. Immediately, they went to the accused office and followed the procedures and from the accused, P.W.8 seized M.O.5 series “Rupees five hundred eight in numbers (i.e.) Rs.4,000/- from the pocket of the accused and tallied with Ex.P8/mahazar.
(v) Then, P.W.5/Venkatamohan, Executive Engineer, T.N.E.B., was informed over phone and he came to the office and he is the attestor of seizure mahazar and also seized estimate which was marked as Ex.P10. Thereafter, accused was arrested by P.W.8 and remanded to custody. Through P.W.3 Devendran, Commercial Inspector, Exs.P5/demand register, P6/entry in page No.10 in Ex.P5 and P7/entry in page No.14 in Ex.P5 were marked. P.W.8 also prepared Ex.P15 sketch.
(vi) After that, P.W.8 obtained sanction from P.W.1/Nedunchezhian, Chief Engineer and he accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused and gave Ex.P1 sanction order.
(vii) On 06.05.2005, P.W.9/Raja Srinivasan, Inspector of Police, took up the case for further investigation and examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements. He seized Ex.P16 attendance register. Then material objects were sent to Forensic Science Department by Ex.P11/letter and obtained Ex.P12/chemical analysis report from P.W.6/Maria Selvi, Assistant in Forensic Science Department. P.W.9 after completing investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The learned trial Judge after following the procedure, framed necessary charges. The accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court examined the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.9 and marked the documents Exs.P1 to P16 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.5 and placed the incriminating
