Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 3622
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Ganesan and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 783 and 784 of 2015
Decided On : 03-11-2016
Subject
Corruption - Bribery
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.162
EVIDENCE ACT : S.27
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : S.7, S.13(2), S.13(1)(d), S.2(c), S.13, S.19(3)(a)
RAILWAY SERVANTS DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES : .
Headnote
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 162 – Criminal Trial - Irregularities - Illegal gratification – Appeal against conviction - Alleged that first accused had conducted an inspection owned by (PW8) - After such inspection, first accused issued a show cause notice indicating certain irregularities found during his inspection and called upon company to submit explanation and/or reply within a period of 7 days - On receipt of show cause notice, defacto complainant, who is working as Manager in said Company owned by PW8, has submitted his reply - On receipt of such reply, the first accused called upon defacto complainant - Held, As regards appellant/A-2, he has not received tainted amount and it was recovered only from possession of appellant/A-1 - After recovery of amount, since appellant/A-1 complained that he has received such amount at instruction of appellant/A-2, investigation officer proceeded to residence of appellant/A-2 where seizure mahazar has been drawn - It is evident that there is no evidence examined on behalf of prosecution to prove guilt of appellant/A-2 - It is needless to mention that even though defacto complainant was not examined and he died during course of trial, there are adequate evidence made available by prosecution as against appellant/A-1 in form of complaint given by defacto complainant to prove demand of illegal gratification, entrustment mahazar to show that amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder has been handed over to defacto complainant, proof of presence of appellant/A-1 at occurrence spot by examining PWs 2 and 3, receipt of tainted amount by appellant/A-2 by producing recovery or seizure mahazar etc - Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside Judgment of conviction recorded against appellant/A-2 - Bail bond, if any, executed by appellant/A-2 shall stands cancelled and fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded - Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming judgment of conviction passed against appellant/A-1 – Order accordingly.
For the Appellants : Mr. K.M. Subramanian, Mr. R. Ravindran, Mr. Ar. L. Sundaresan, Ms. Al. Ganthimathi.
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Rajarathinam.
These Criminal Appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 30.11.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for CBI Cases instituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. There are two accused in the Criminal Case. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 783 of 2015 is the second accused and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 2015 is the first accused. After trial, both the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The appellants were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and also a fine of Rs.1,000. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to as 'accused' as they were arrayed before the trial court.
3. The gist of the case is as follows:-
(i) The first accused was serving as Inspector of Factories, Circle-II in the office of the Inspector of Factories at Bharat Kumar Bhavan, No. 617, Annasalai, Chennai from 03.06.2006 to 09.07.2010. The second accused was working as Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories in the same office. Both the accused are public servants within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
(ii) According to the prosecution, during the course of such employment, it was alleged that the first accused had conducted an inspection on 16.04.2010 at Hanumanth and Company, brick Chamber owned by one Ramarao (PW8). After such inspection, the first accused issued a show cause notice dated 07.05.2010 indicating certain irregularities found during his inspection and called upon the company to submit explanation and/or reply within a period of 7 days. On receipt of the show cause notice, Tr. Markandayan, the defacto complainant, who is working as Manager in the said Company owned by PW8, has submitted his reply 21.06.2010. On receipt of such reply, the first accused called upon the defacto complainant - Tr. Markandeyan over phone on 06.07.2010 and directed him to meet him at his office on the next day.
(iii) Accordingly, the defacto complainant met the first accused at his office at Annasalai, Chennai on 08.07.2010 at 17.30 hours. At that time, the first accused is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as an illegal gratification for himself and also for his superior, the second accused - Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories for not launching prosecution against the company owned by PW8. Inspite of the fact that the defacto complainant informed the first accused that such a demand is excessive, the first accused reiterated his demand and took the defacto complainant to the chambers of the second accused, who is his immediate superior. The defacto complainant also pleaded before the second accused to reduce the bribe amount demanded by first accused by stating that such an amount demanded is huge. The second accused therefore reduced the demand amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.15,000/-. The second accused also instructed the defacto complainant to meet the first accused on 09.07.2010 at about 20.30 hours near "Kanchi Bakery" at 18th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai to handover the amount of Rs.15,000/-. The defacto complainant informed his owner - Ramarao (PW8) about the alleged demand made by the accused towards illegal gratification for not launching prosecution against the company. As they were not willing to pay the bribe amount, as per the instruction of PW8, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint dated 09.07.2010 to PW7, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
(iv) On receipt of the complaint, PW7 registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 2010 for the alleged offenc
