Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. BASKARAN, J.
Dhayanandhan @ Dhayalan (died) D. Shanthi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Chennai – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 488 of 2010
Decided On : 11-08-2017
For the Appellant : M/s. Kumar Talrejaa.
For the Respondent: Mr. E. Raja.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(2) r\w 13(1)(d) ,7,13 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) - Accused was working as Office Assistant in Taluk Office - Brother of t complainant one was working as Line man in Electricity Board, and he died - In order to enable his wife to get pensionary benefits of deceased husband, she was in need of legal heir certificate - In that connection, complainant PW-2 gave a petition/ Application for legal-heir certificate along with annexures, Ex.P.2 on behalf of his Sister-in-law in office of Taluk Office and same was received by accused herein - At that time, accused is alleged to have demanded sum from t complainant so as to issue legal heir certificate - Thereafter, Inspector of Police, PW-6 secured official witnesses PW-3 and another person who were working in District Employment Office, to be present in his office as witnesses during demonstration of trap proceedings Complainant PW-2 produced alleged trap amount as directed by Inspector of Police PW-6. According to PW-2, he handed over one denomination - Thereafter, PW-6, Inspector of Police conducted demonstration with sodium carbonate solution for benefit of complainant and two official witnesses for trap proceedings - Witnesses PW-3 and other witness were apprised about contents of complaint lodged by PW-2 and also procedure to be followed in trap proceedings to be conducted on the same day in office of the accused, who demanded said illegal gratification – Held, learned counsel for appellant also pointed out that even though complaint was lodged , sanction to prosecute accused was obtained nearly two years and three months later - Sanctioning authority, who deposed as PW-1, admitted said fact in his cross examination and stated that he received requisition letter to accord sanction - Likewise, Inspector of Police/PW-7 who secured sanction to prosecute accused admitted same, but he has not stated any reason for obtaining sanction belatedly - Further, it is pointed out that complaint was lodged and trap proceeding was conducted on that day itself, but, PW-6 Inspector of Police in his chief examination has stated that complaint was received - However, in his cross examination, PW-6 clearly stated that complaint was received only and trial court has accepted the same - It is therefore clear from discussion stated that prosecution has failed to prove fact of demand and acceptance by accused herein as illegal gratification and in such circumstances, conclusion arrived at by trial court and reasoning stated by it for such a conclusion is not correct and same is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set Aside - Point is answered accordingly - In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed - Conviction and sentence imposed by learned Special Judge/VII Additional Sessions Judge, is set aside and appellant/accused is acquitted and bail bond, if any executed by her shall stand cancelled and fine amounts, if any, paid by her is ordered to be refunded forthwith – Order accordingly.
1. The accused Dhayanandhan @ Dhayalan stood charged for offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was found guilty by the trial court and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 2 months imprisonment under Section 7 of P.C. Act and to undergo sentence of imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of PC Act, with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo 2 months imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said verdict of the trial court, the accused has come forward with this criminal appeal seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court. During the pendency of this Criminal Appeal, the accused/appellant Dhayanandhan @ Dhayalan died and his wife D. Shanthi, has been impleaded to continue the appeal, as per the order of this court dated 25.04.2012 vide M.P. No. 2 of 2012 in Crl. Appeal No. 488 of 2010.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-
The accused Dhayanandhan @ Dhayalan was working as Office Assistant in the Purasalwalkam-Perambur Taluk Office, Perambur High Road, Chennai-11. The complainant M. Eakambaram is a resident of Periyar Nagar, Chennai-82. The brother of the complainant one Selvaraj was working as Line man in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, and he died on 15.07.2004. In order to enable his wife Lakshmi to get the pensionary benefits of the deceased husband, viz., Selvaraj, she was in need of legal heir certificate. In that connection, the complainant PW-2 Eakambaram gave a petition/ Application for legal-heir certificate along with annexures, Ex.P.2 on behalf of his Sister-in-law Lakshmi in the office of Purasalwalkam-Perambur Taluk Office on 09.09.2004 and the same was received by the accused herein. At that time, the accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. 800/- from the complainant so as to issue the legal heir certificate. The complainant again met the accused in his office on 10.09.2004 assuring him that he will arrange for payment of amount of Rs. 800/- as demanded by the accused. On 10.09.2004 also, the accused is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 800/- as a reward to facilitate the complainant to get the legal heir certificate without any delay. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the amount, he lodged a complaint Ex.P.4 on 13.09.2004 to PW-6 the then Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption Wing, Chennai. The complainant also stated that when he met the accused on 09.09.2004, he was answered by the accused to come with a sum of Rs. 800/- on the next day viz. 10.09.2004 and he told the accused that he will not be able to come as the same happened to be the salary payment day and on that the accused gave him an identity slip to send it with someone else and the same is Ex.P.3. The Inspector of Police who deposed as PW-6 stated that on receipt of Ex.P.4 complaint, he registered a case in Crime No. 09/AC/2004/CC-II and the said FIR is Ex.P.15. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, PW-6 secured the official witnesses PW-3 Mohanraj and another person Rangaraj who were working in District Employment Office, Santhome, Chennai, to be present in his office as witnesses during the demonstration of trap proceedings. The complainant PW-2 produced the alleged trap amount of Rs. 800/- as directed by the Inspector of Police PW-6. According to PW-2, he handed over one denomination of Rs. 500/- and three denomination of Rs. 100/- totalling Rs. 800/-. Thereafter, PW-6, the Inspector of Police conducted demonstration with sodium carbonate solution for the benefit of complainant and the two official witnesses for the trap proceedings. The said sum of Rs. 800/- which is produced as M.O.1 was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the witness Rangaraj was asked to count the notes and thereafter Mahazar was prepared wherein the numbers of the said currency notes was entered.
