Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 1915
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Wing – Appellant
Versus
A. Kuddus – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (MD).No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 20-04-2015
For the Appellant : C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Respondent:T. Senthilkumar, Advocate.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13, 20 – Order of Acquittal – State is the appellant in this appeal – The respondent is the accused in Special Case No.5/2011 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirapalli. – He stood charged for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. – The trial Court, by judgment dated 18.09.2012, has acquitted the accused. – As against the same, the State is before this Court with this appeal. – Held, P.W.4-the Special Tahsildar has admitted that he had authorised the accused to collect donations for Flag Day. Apart from that, D.Ws.1 and 2 have also stated that from them also the accused asked for donation towards the Flag Day and they paid money. – The receipts issued to them by the accused have also been marked in evidence. – This would clearly go to show that the defence taken by the accused cannot be simply brushed aside, as an after thought. – He has stated the same consistently from the beginning. – He has been authorised by the Tahsildar to collect such money. – He collected such money from D.Ws.1 and 2 and others also. – D.W.2 is an important witness, who has stated that he was present at the time when P.W.2 came and paid the tainted money. – This is in tune with the case of the prosecution. – P.Ws.2 and 3 had stated that when they reached the office of the accused at 01.30p.m., there were few people standing inside the office. – D.W.2 claims that he was one of those persons standing in the office. – Though D.W.2 has been cross-examined at length by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited to doubt his evidence. – He has also stated that at the time of trap, when P.W.2 gave money, P.W.2 told the accused that it was only for Flag day collection. – All these facts and circumstances, in my considered opinion, would clearly go to rebut the presumption under Section 20(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. – As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, assuming that the view that the accused received the said amount only towards illegal gratification is also equally possible, this Court cannot substitute the said view in the place of the well considered view taken by the lower Court. – Court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. – Criminal Appeal Dismissed
1. The State is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent is the accused in Special Case No.5/2011 on the file of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirapalli. He stood charged for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial Court, by judgment dated 18.09.2012, has acquitted the accused. As against the same, the State is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows:
P.W.2 is a resident of Bhishopkulam Street, in Puthur, Trichy. He is residing in the house bearing Door No.20/5, new Door NO.16. According to him, he purchased the said house from one Venkatraman, Rengasamy and Ramanujam, by means of an unregistered sale deed. However, he paid house tax for the said house to the Municipality. Thus, according to him, he owns the said house.
(ii) On 23.08.2006, at about 09.00 a.m., when P.W.2 was in the bazar at Trichy, one Contractor by name Murugesan told him that his motorcycle had been seized by the police and produced before the Court and for getting it released, P.W.2 should stand as surety. P.W.2 agreed for the same. Then Mr. Murugesan, asked P.W.2 to get necessary certificate from the local Village Administrative Officer to show that he owned the above said property. P.W.2 agreed.
(iii) On the same day, in the evening, P.W.2 proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer of Puthur Village. At about 04.30, p.m., when he reached the office, he found the accused/the Village Administrative Officer, in the office sitting in his chair. P.W.2 requested him to issue certificate, showing that he is the owner of the above said house, for the purpose of producing the same before Court. The accused asked for Rs.500/- from P.W.2. When P.W.2 asked the accused, as to what for should he pay the amount, the accused told him that certificate cannot be given, without money. He further told P.W.2 to give Rs.500/- and then get the certificate. P.W.2 felt that it was not proper for him to pay bribe to the accused. Therefore, he decided to prefer complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
(iv) On 24.08.2006 at 08.00 a.m., he went to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption police station. Along with him, he took Rs.400/- i.e. four currency notes of hundred rupees denomination, the house tax receipts for the house and the family card. P.W.11-Mr.Ramachandran, was the Inspector of Police, attached to Vigilance and Anti-corruption at Trichirappalli. P.W.2 narrated to him orally the above illegal demand made by the accused. P.W.11 reduced the same into writing and after having read the same, P.W.2 signed the said statement (Ex.P.5). Based on the same, P.W.11 registered a case in Cr.No.10 of 2006, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Then P.W.11 got permission from his higher authorities for conducting a trap. P.W.11, then sent an intimation to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Agricultural Department, at Trichy, to depute a staff from his office, to be a witness for the proposed trap. Similarly, he had sent another request to the Office of the Labour Inspector to depute a staff. At about 11.30 a.m. on 24.08.2006 from the Office of the Labour Inspector, P.W.3-Mr.Sankar arrived and from the Office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, one Junior Assistant by name Ramamurthy also arrived.
(v) P.W.11 explained to P.W.3 and Mr.Ramamurthy about the proposed trap. Then, he conducted demonstration of phenolphthalein test. Thereafter, he received four currency notes of hundred rupees denomination from P.W.2. P.W.11 smeared the said currency notes with phenolphthalein powder and gave the same back to P.W.2. He prepared an observation mahazar for the said purpose. Then he explained to P.W.2 and P.W.3 that after the demand if made, the money should be given to the accused. With these instructions, P.W.11 took P.W.2 and P.W.3 in his vehicle to the office of the accus
