IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
N.Chandran - Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Cuddalore - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.790 of 2008
Decided on : 19-09-2017
Prevention of corruption Act - Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) – Criminal Trial - Change of name in patta - Death Certificate and Legal Heir certificate - Demand and Acceptance of illegal gratification - Abusing his position as a public servant – Criminal misconduct - Appeal against conviction - Husband of Mrs.Selinprema died on - Mr.Anthonysamy had some immovable properties in his name - To change name the patta, father of Mrs.Selinprema, applied for Mr.Anthonysamys Death Certificate and Legal Heir certificate – Thasildar received applications and put his intial on it and directed applicant to meet Village Administrative Officer - Accordingly, on next day (.Amalanathan met Mr.N.Chandran (the appellant) the Village Administrative Officer concerned, in his office and handed over applications for death certificate and legal heir certificate along with the letter of Thasidar to process applications – Held, Appellant/accused has infuriated defacto complaint - P.W.2, leading to foist a false complaint against appellant/accused and planting of tainted money in his shirt pocket, is not plausible for multiple reasons –F irstly, there was no undue delay in processing application - Application for death certificate made to Tahsildar, accused has demanded bribe, very next day - Secondly, What is necessity for the Village Administrative Officer / the appellant herein to entertain defacto complainant - P.W.2 to his house ? and Why should appellant wife tell defacto complaint - P.W.2 to keep money in her husbands shirt pocket hanging on a chair ? Is it possible for a man to put money on another mans shirt pocket without his knowledge ? - When recovery of tainted money is from shirt pocket of appellant/accused, it has to be presumed that appellant had consciously possessing it, unless, contrary is proved - If money was placed in his pocket as instructed by his wife, then, appellant could have examined his wife to say how money went into his shirt pocket - Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt receipt of money as illegal gratification by accused/appellant and statutory presumption has to be drawn against appellant - Criminal Appeal dismissed.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.10.2008 in Special Case No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. The convict is a Village Adminstrative Officer for receiving Rs.500/- as bribe for issuance of Death Certificate.
2. The case of the prosecution, unfolds, as below:-
Mr.Anthonysamy, the husband of Mrs.Selinprema died on 04.11.2001. Mr.Anthonysamy had some immovable properties in his name. To change the name in the patta, Mr.Amalanathan, the father of Mrs.Selinprema, applied for Mr.Anthonysamy's Death Certificate and Legal Heir certificate on 21.03.2002. The Thasildar, Kattumannarkoil received the applications and put his intial on it and directed the applicant Mr.Amalanathan to meet the Village Administrative Officer, Kattumannarkoil.
3. Accordingly, on the next day (22.03.2002), Mr.Amalanathan met Mr.N.Chandran (the appellant herein) the Village Administrative Officer concerned, in his office at Vadakkupalyamkottai Village and handed over the applications for death certificate and legal heir certificate along with the letter of the Thasidar to process the applications. The appellant has returned the applications to Mr.Amalanathan demanding bribe of Rs.2000/- to issue legal heirship certificate and Rs.500/- to issue death certificate.
4. On 28.03.2002 at about 20.00 hrs, Mr.Amalanathan had went to the residence of the appellant at No.21, Keezhamada Veethi, Sirmushnam , Kattumannar koil Taluk along with the applications. At that time, the appellant has received the application for death certificate and Rs.250/- and returned the application for legal heirship certificate, with instruction to bring it back with the balance amount demanded earlier. Again on 02.04.2002, Mr.Amalanathan went to the appellant house and expressed his inability to pay the money demanded. For which, the appellant has asked Mr.Amalanathan to bring Rs.500/- and met him on the next day at 8.00 am, at his house.
5. Unwilling to pay bribe, Mr.Amalanathan has preferred a written complaint on 02.04.2002 at 20.00 hours to the Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department, Cuddalore, informing about the demand of illegal gratification for issuing death certificate. The respondent police has registered the complaint and had laid trap. As instructed, the defacto complainant along with shadow witness had gone to the appellant house on 03.04.2002 at about 9.30 hours. The appellant had demanded and obtained Rs.500/- from the defacto complainant as illegal gratification and was caught red handed by the Trap Laying Officer and his team.
6. The trial Court has framed two charges, one under section 7 of Prevention of corruption Act, for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the second under section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for criminal misconduct viz, obtaining pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as a 'public servant'.
7. The prosecution to prove the charges had examined 16 witnesses; marked 25 documents and 3 material objects through these witnesses. On behalf of the accused/appellant 4 exhibits were marked.
8. The trial Court after appreciation of the ocular and documentary evidences had held the accused guilty of both charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
9. The trial Court judgment is challenged on the ground that, the defacto complaint had turned hostile and in his evidence, has deposed that, the appellant did not issue death certificate and the legal heirship certificate and was delaying the process, so to wreak vengeance, h
Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of Gujarat
Subash Parbat Sonvane vs- State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 5 SCC 86
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Haryana
Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.