Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J.
Ramalingam - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 368 of 2008
Decided On : 05-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Ezhilnilavan
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Ravichandran
The burden of proof shifts to the accused to explain the receipt of tainted money for a legal purpose, and procedural violations do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution case.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The judgment discusses the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and their interpretation in the context of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court analyzes the evidence of tainted money, site plan requirements, and the burden of proof on the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Superintendent, and another accused were charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting Rs.500 as illegal gratification from a retired employee. The trial court convicted the appellant but acquitted the second accused due to lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of tainted money recovery from the appellant, lack of explanation for its possession, and absence of a plausible legal purpose for receiving the money supported the conviction. The acquittal of the second accused was justified, and the appellant's guilt was established.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the sufficiency of evidence, compliance with procedural guidelines, and the burden of proof on the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recovery of tainted money, absence of a plausible explanation for its receipt, and lack of evidence linking the second accused justified the appellant's conviction. It also emphasized that procedural violations do not vitiate the prosecution case entirely.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was upheld.
This is an appeal preferred by the first accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Brief facts of the case is that the appellant, who is arrayed as A1 alongwith one Raja Rajeswari, who is arrayed as A2, were working as Superintendent and Supervisor Grade I respectively at Kuthalam Child Development Project Office during the relevant period. One Smt.Jaya, who was working as Aaya in Anganvadi Centre, Thiruvaduthuurai retired from her service on 30.06.2002 and her Special Provident Fund of Rs.6,050/- was not disbursed to her even after two years from her retirement. Hence, she approached the appellant (A1) and Rajarajeswari (A2) for which they have demanded Rs.500/-. Therefore, on 12.07.2004, Smt. Jaya gave a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Manjakollai. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent police arranged for a trap. Witnesses for the trap proceedings were organized. The defacto complainant and one Rajagopalan have gone to the office of the appellant on demand. The defacto complainant had given tainted money of Rs.500/- to the appellant and the same has been witnessed by Rajagopalan, who was examined as PW2. Thereafter, the investigation team has apprehended the appellant (A1) after conducting seizure of Rs.500/-. After investigation, a final report has been filed against the appellant and Rajarajeswari (A2).
3. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and marked 20 exhibits along with 5 material objects. On the side of the accused, no witnesses or exhibits were marked. After appreciating the evidence, the trial Court found the appellant (A1) guilty for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The second accused was acquitted for want of evidence.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the explanation given by the accused that Rs.500/- was given to him towards incidental expenses for preparing the pension papers of the defacto complainant and there was no evidence to show that there was a demand of illegal gratification by the appellant.
5. Further, when the defacto complainant alleged that there was a demand of illegal gratification on 01.07.2004, the complaint was lodged only on 12.07.2004, in which the delay of 7 days has not been explained, which caused doubt upon the prosecution case, however, over looking the same, the trial Court has convicted the appellant.
6. Further, it is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that when the second accused has been acquitted for want of evidence, the same benefit should have been extended to the appellant/1st accused and also the benefit of doubt is to be given to him. When there is no corroboration for demand or acceptance based on the interested witness PW2, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant/A1.
7. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that, the Manual of the respondent Department under Rule 49 specifies that whenever there is a trap proceeding, site plan must be preferred by the Investigating Officer. In this case, the prosecution neither prepared the site plan nor placed it before this Court to appreciate the veracity of the evidence given by PW3, the so called witness for demand and acceptance. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant read over the deposition of PW2, wherein he has stated that he was hiding and witnessing the occurrence of demand and acceptance of money by the appellant/A1. Without site plan, whether such portion of the evidence could be accepted is the doubt raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
8. Similarly, while Rule 47 of the Vigilance Manual instructed the Investigating Officer to put a question to th
