Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
G.V.V. Satyanarayana and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Puducherry - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 399, 400 and 401 of 2014
Decided On : 31-10-2017
Prevention of Corruption Act - Abetment of Public Servant - Section 12 of PC Act r/w 34 of IPC - [Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12; Indian Penal Code, Section 34]
Fact of the Case:
The accused, PWD contractors, were charged with abetting a deceased Executive Engineer to receive bribes for allotting works contracts. The prosecution alleged that demand drafts were drawn in favor of the engineer's family members and encashed, indicating acceptance of illegal gratification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to prove the essential components of the charges, including the reason for offering bribes, the offering of bribes, and the acceptance of the same. The judgment of conviction and sentence against the accused was set aside.
Issues: Improper appreciation of evidence, failure to prove essential components of the charges, and reliance on insufficient evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must independently prove the reason for offering bribes, the offering of bribes, and the acceptance of the same to establish guilt. Insufficient evidence and improper appreciation of evidence can lead to the setting aside of a judgment.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence against all the accused was set aside, and the criminal appeals were allowed. Fine amounts paid by the appellants were to be refunded, and bail bonds executed were discharged.
These three criminal appeals are preferred by the accused 2 to 6 in Spl.C.C. No.1/2006 on the file of Special Judge, Puducherry challenging the judgement dated 22.07.2014 sentencing them to undergo 5 years R.I and fine of Rs 10,000/- in default to undergo 3 months S.I. for offence under section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Criminal Appeal No.399 of 2014 is the appeal filed by G.V.V. Satyanarayana, the 6th accused, Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2014 is the appeal filed by M. Satyasai and M. Ravikumar the 4th and 5th accused respectively and Criminal Appeal No.401 of 2014 is the appeal filed by V. Satyanarayana Raju and V. Baskara Raju the 2nd and 3rd accused respectively.
3. The sum and substance of the case under appeal is that, the accused persons are registered PWD contractors of Yenam Region, Pondicherry Union Territory. Between 1999 to 2002 one V. Selvaraj was the Executive Engineer for Yenam Region. Based on the complaints by one of the contractors by name Surveswara Rao and an EX-MLA by name Malladi Krishna Rao alleging rampant corruption in allotting works contract and receipt of bribe as reward by Selvaraj from the contractors, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Unit of Pondicherry, has registered Criminal Case No. 5 of 2001 against Selvaraj and the contractors and investigated the case. By the time, final report was filed, the public servant Selvaraj passed away and the trial court has framed charges against the contractors for the offence under section 12 of PC Act r/w 34 of IPC.
4. The substance of charges is that, firstly, during the year 1999 in furtherance of common intention A-2 to A-6 abetted A-1 the Executive Engineer of PWD Mr. P. Selvaraj (deceased) to receive Rs.2,65,000/- as bribe by way of demand drafts drawn in the name of his wife S. Selvanayaki, sons S. Sethuraman and S.Segar in order to show some favour in alloting contract works. Secondly, during the year 2000, A-3 and A-6 abetted A-1 the Executive Engineer of PWD Mr. P. Selvaraj (deceased) to receive Rs 2,72,000/- as bribe by way of demand drafts drawn in the name of his wife S.Selvanayaki in order to show some favour in alloting contract works. Thirdly, during the year 2001, A-3 abetted A-1 the Executive Engineer of PWD Mr. P. Selvaraj (deceased) to receive Rs 79,900/- as bribe by way of demand drafts drawn in the name of his wife S.Selvanayaki in order to show some favour in alloting contract works. As per the final report placed before the trial court, the demand drafts were drawn at State Bank of India at Yanam or Indian Bank at Yanam or Andhra Bank Injaram by the contractors in favour of P.Selvanayaki and she has encashed it through her accounts in UCO bank, Bazaar Branch Pondicherry or Indian Overseas Bank, Pondicherry.
5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and has marked 126 exhibits. On the defence side one exhibit is marked. After appreciating the evidences let in by both the parties, the trial court has held the accused guilty of offences under section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 34 of Indian penal code. Aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and sentence, the present appeals are preferred by the accused/appellants.
Grounds of appeal
6. The main charge of the prosecution is that the accused contractors abetted the deceased Executive Engineer to award contracts by corrupt means and had received reward for abusing his official position. However none of the prosecution witness or document indicate the work contract was awarded to the accused persons without following the procedure or the work executed by the accused persons were of sub-standard for which the Executive Engineer has paid in excess by obtaining bribe. Nor the prosecution has proved the alleged demand drafts drawn by them and the same had been encashed by the family members of A1.
7. Based on the complaint of the contractor Mr. Sarveswara Rao-P.W.2 and the MLA
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
