Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
K. Selvamani – Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 2110 of 2015
Decided On : 01-04-2015
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and emphasized the need for establishing demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The court also highlighted the principles regarding framing of charges and the evaluation of evidence at the initial stage of the trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was accused of accepting a bribe. He denied the allegations, claiming that the prosecution was actuated by mala fides and that the evidence collected during the investigation was fraught with discrepancies and contradictions.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, stating that the points raised by the petitioner could only be considered during the trial, and the probative value of the materials on record could not be evaluated at this stage.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe, the mala fides of the prosecution, and the evaluation of evidence at the initial stage of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for establishing demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the principles regarding framing of charges and the evaluation of evidence at the initial stage of the trial.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being granted the liberty to present his defense at an appropriate stage and to pursue further remedies in accordance with the law.
1. The petitioner is arrayed as A-1 in Special Case No.16 of 2014, on the file of the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Trichy and he has filed this Criminal Original Petition to quash the said case insofar as he is concerned.
2. The petitioner would state that at present, he is a Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category - I) and he originally joined as the Sub- Inspector of Police and rendered meritorious service and he was promoted to the present post between 2011-2012.
3. The petitioner working serving as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Sub Division, received a current paper from the Special Branch Office, Trichy, during the first week of July 2012, directing him to verify certain particulars about one Alpha Educational Charitable Trust and he, in turn, sent the said papers to the jurisdictional Inspector of Police, Lalgudi, with a direction to conduct a personal enquiry and give a report. The said official, in turn, deputed the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Chandramohan (A-2), to verify the details. The matter regarding Alpha Educational Charitable Trust is that they had submitted an application for registering the Trust under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (in short 'FCRA'). The Inspector of Police as well as the Sub Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, sent a report to the petitioner making favourable recommendation. The petitioner not being satisfied with the details gathered by the said officials, returned the papers seeking clarifications/queries during the second week of July 2012.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that on 18.07.2012, he was on bando-bust duty at Samayapuram Mariamman Temple in connection with the 18th day of Tamil month of 'Aadi' festival as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy Rural Police District and at about 06.00 p.m., on that day, when he was at Samayapuram Police Station, one Rajamanickam of Alpha Educational Charitable Trust met him and informed him that the Sub-Inspector of Police, namely, Chandramohan (A-2) and the Inspector of Police, namely, Elancheliyan, directed him to meet the petitioner to clarify certain queries raised by him in respect of the reports put up by them. The petitioner responded by saying that he is busy with security arrangements for the said festival and asked him to meet Chandramohan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, (A-2) as he has sought certain clarifications/queries for re-submitting the papers and also informed that as per the instructions received from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Trichy District, he has to expedite and submit a report as early as possible.
5. The petitioner claims that when he was in the District Police Office on 19.07.2012 at 10.00 a.m., the said Rajamanickam managed to get his mobile number and called him and informed that he has made the papers ready and wanted to meet him and he told him that he will return to his office at Lalgudi between 02.30 p.m., and 03.00 p.m., and asked him to come there with all papers relating to his application for registering under FCRA. The petitioner returned to his office at 02.30 p.m., on 19.07.2012 and it is an office cum residence and his office is situated at the upstairs portion. The petitioner on entering into the office, saw the said Rajamanickam and asked him to wait and he went to the residential quarters to change his dress and he was combing his hair and at that time, few persons came and caught hold him and when he questioned their identity, they told him that they are the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Inspector of Police, of the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and they informed him that he received a bribe of Rs.25,000/- from the said Rajamanickam to submit a favourable report.
6. The petitioner has denied the same and told them what transpired already. However, they refused to listen the same. The petitioner was brought to his office room and so also, the said Rajamanic
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
