Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
S. Nagamuthu, J.
Bavanandam – Appellant
Vs.
State – Respondent
Crl. A. (MD) No. 311 of 2007
Decided On: 18.06.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Baalasundaram
For the Respondent: C. Mayilvahana Rajendran
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 – Partition – Patta – Corruption – Appellant is the sole accused in Spl. C.C. No. 4 of 2002, on the file of the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. – He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. – By judgment dated 13.06.2007, the trial Court found him guilty under both charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. – Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal – Held, Prosecution is bound to prove the case beyond every reasonable doubt. – Here, in this case, the oral evidence of P.W. 2 during the cross-examination making admission of so many facts in favour of the accused and the documentary evidence by way of Ex. D. 3 have completely destroyed the case of the prosecution. – The benefit arising out of these documents should naturally go only in favour of the accused. – It is pointed out by the accused that there was a motive between him and P.W. 2. – This motive was exclusively known to him and P.W. 2 alone. P.W. 2 has admitted the said motive and it is also his case that on one occasion when P.W. 2 gave a written request for transfer of patta, he tore it, as it was not of worth considering, since the request was made based on the unregistered partition deed. – This fact has also been admitted by P.W. 2. – Having failed to get a favourable order from the accused, P.W. 2 had gone to the scheme office. – The petition was again forwarded to the accused. – According to the accused, he prepared a negative note declining to recommend for transfer of patta and this was seized by the police and the same was suppressed. – P.W. 2 has admitted that the said document was seized. – This has also not been disputed seriously by the prosecution, while cross examining P.W. 2. – All these facts also create doubt in the case of the prosecution. – Court find that the prosecution has succeed only in making out a very strong suspicion against the accused. – The said suspicion would not take the place of proof. – Court is constrained to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. – Criminal Appeal Allowed
S. Nagamuthu, J.
1. The appellant is the sole accused in Spl. C.C. No. 4 of 2002, on the file of the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2)r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By judgment dated 13.06.2007, the trial Court found him guilty under both charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The accused at the relevant time, was the Village Administrative Officer of Lakshmi Narasimmapuram village in Pudukkottai District. P.W. 2 Nagaraj, belongs to Pulichankadu hamlet, which falls within Lakshmi Narasimmapuram village limits. According to the case of the prosecution, there was a joint family property owned by P.W. 2 and his brother in Survey Nos. 56/8, 56/9, 56/10, 56/15, 56/16 and 56/17 in the same village. The patta for the said lands was in the name of his father Mr. M. Shanmugam. There was a partition effected between them in the year 1999, by means of an unregistered partition deed.
1.1. On 20.12.2001, according to the case of the prosecution, P.W. 2 met the accused at his office and gave a written request to him for transfer of patta in his name, based on the above partition. It is alleged that at that time, for effecting transfer of patta, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification. P.W. 2 told him that he would come again with Rs. 1,000/-. Thereafter, P.W. 2 went to the Scheme Office and made a written request for transfer of patta. Admittedly, the power to transfer patta was not with the Village Administrative Officer, but with the Scheme Officer. The Scheme Officer, on receiving the said written request (Ex. P. 2), made an endorsement and returned the same to P.W. 2 and wanted him to hand over the same to the Village Administrative Officer, namely, the accused. Accordingly, according to P.W. 2, he went to the office of the accused and handed over the said petition. At that time, it is alleged that the accused again demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification and told him that wherever he could go with any request, ultimately the said request would only reach him. He also wanted P.W. 2 to bring his father on the next day.
1.2. On 21.12.2001, P.W. 2 went to the office of the accused along with his father. The accused made enquiry with the father of P.W. 2. He also expressed no objection for transfer of patta in the name of P.W. 2. After the said enquiry, P.W. 2 left the office of the accused along with his father. Again on 06.01.2002, P.W. 2 went to the office of the accused and enquired about the patta transfer matter. At that time also, it is alleged that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification for the said purpose. P.W. 2 assured him to come on the next day with the said amount.
1.3. But on the next day, that was on 07.01.2002, he went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Station along with a written complaint about the above demand for illegal gratification made by the accused. P.W. 12 was the then Inspector of Police attached to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Station, at Pudukkottai. On 07.01.2002 at about 10.30 a.m., P.W. 2 presented the written complaint to him. On receipt of the same, he registered a case in Cr. No. 1 of 2002 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Ex. P. 3 is the complaint and Ex
