Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 2488
IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J.
M. Patties - Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
State by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Department - Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal(MD) No.240 of 2006
Decided On : 22.07.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Mr. R. Singaravelan for M/s. J. Nisha Banu.
For Respondent: Mr. T. Mohan Additional Government Pleader.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13, 20 – Oral And Documentary Evidence – M. Patties, the sole accused in Special C.C.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Ramanathapuram is the appellant in the present appeal. – He was prosecuted in the said case for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. – Trial Court found him guilty of both the offences, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month, for each one of the said offences, by a judgement dated 23.05.2006. – The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. – As against the judgement, the present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. – Held, It has also been established that the mere recovery of tainted money from the accused without further proof of demand and voluntary, acceptance of the same as illegal gratification and especially when an explanation is offered by the accused as to how the amount was found at his place, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act will not be attracted. – In those precedents even when the tainted money was recovered from the accused persons and the receipt of the same had been admitted a viable explanation for the money was held to be enough to negative the presumption contemplated under Section 20 of the Act. – The defence case of the accused in the case on hand is better than those cases. – Court have seen supra, that the prosecution story relating to demand of illegal gratification has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as it was spoken to by P.W.2 alone and his evidence is also unreliable. – The material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 7 who alone supported prosecution case regarding the demand and the improbabilities in the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, will lead to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. – On the other hand numerous admissions made by the prosecution witness and the evidence adduced through the defence witness probablise the defence theory of foisting the case, will lead to the conclusion that the accused has proved his defence case by preponderance of probabilities. – The learned trial Judge, without adverting to the above said aspects, rendered a finding that the accused was proved to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt. – The said finding is quite erroneous, defective and infirm and in fact, the said finding can even be stated to be perverse. – Court comes to the conclusion that the learned trial Judge committed an error in law by holding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicting him; that the same is liable to be set aside by this Court and that the accused is entitled to be acquitted in respect of both the offences for which he was prosecuted. – Criminal Appeal Allowed
M. Patties, the sole accused in Special C.C.No.9 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(Chief Judicial Magistrate), Ramanathapuram is the appellant in the present appeal. He was prosecuted in the said case for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The trial Court found him guilty of both the offences, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for one month, for each one of the said offences, by a judgement dated 23.05.2006. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. As against the judgement, the present appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is referred to as the ''accused'' and the respondent shall be referred to as ''the prosecution''.
4. The case of the prosecution as discerned from the oral and documentary evidence can be briefly stated as follows:
During the relevant point of time, the accused Patties was functioning as Divisional Fire Officer at Ramanathapuram and he was a public servant. P.W.2-Selvaraj, P.W.6-Pandi and P.W.7-Balasubramanian were working as Light Motor Vehicle Drivers in the Fire Service Department and they were posted at the Fire Station, Ramanathapuram. They had undergone training in driving heavy motor vehicle at the State Level Driving School, Chennai and were granted Heavy Motor Vehicle licence by the Regional Transport Officer. They had also undergone Pump-Operator training which was one of the requirements for being appointed as Heavy Motor Vehicle Driver in the Fire Service Department and they had become fully eligible to be promoted as Heavy Motor Vehicle Drivers. The accused, who was the competent authority to issue promotion orders to the drivers of the light motor vehicle as drivers of heavy motor vehicle, demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from each one of the said persons for promoting them as heavy motor vehicle drivers. The demand was made through P.W.4-Ramachandran at the first instance and then through P.W.5-Jamal Abdul Nazar. On 27.08.1999 P.W.2-Selvaraj met Jamal Abdul Nazar who was working as Station Writer at Ramanathapuram Fire Station and requested him to make a recommendation to post P.W.2 as heavy motor vehicle driver at Ramanathapuram itself. Thereafter, P.W.5-Jamal Abdul Nazar met Selvaraj-P.W.2 on 30.08.1999 and informed him that the accused was demanding at least a sum of Rs. 3000/-. On 05.09.1999 at about 9.30 A.M, P.W.5 met P.W.2 again and informed him that the accused wanted P.W.2-Selvaraj and P.W.7-Balasubramanian to make payment of Rs.3,000/- each for their retention at Ramanathapuram on their promotion as heavy motor vehicle drivers. On the same day at 10.00 a.m., both P.W.2 and P.W.5 met P.W.7 Balasubramanian at his residence and conveyed the message. Balasubramanian informed them that he could not afford to pay the amount and requested P.W.2 and P.W.5 not to reveal the fact of their meeting him. On the same day, at about 12.00 noon, P.W.2-Selvaraj and P.W.5-Jamal Abdul Nazar met the accused at his residence whereupon P.W.2-Selvaraj requested the accused to post him at Ramanathapuram itself as he had been recently transferred to Ramanathapuram after much efforts. The accused insisted upon payment of Rs.3,000/- for his retention at Ramanathapuram. P.W.2 informed that he would make payment the next day and the accused informed P.W.2 that he would issue the posting order the next day itself. As P.W.2 was not willing to pay the amount demanded by the accused as illegal gratification, he met the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Ramanathapuram and lodged a complaint in writing under Ex.P2 at 06.09.1999 at about 12.00 noon. P.W.12-Balashanmugam was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Cor
