K. M. Raju vs State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Erode

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(Mad) 3207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K.M. Raju & Others – Appellant
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Erode & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 80 & 84 of 2014 & 447 of 2016 & Criminal M.P. No. 3030 of 2016
Decided On : 20-12-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :A.K. Kumaraswamy Sr.Counsel for S. Kaithamalaikumaran, R. Karthikeyan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:
Corruption - Criminal Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 109 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - [7, 11, 13(2), 13(1)(d), 109, 109 IPC] - The court discussed the charges against the accused under section 7, 11, 13(2), 13(1)(d), and 109 IPC of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the evidence presented to prove the charges. The court highlighted the lack of evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presence of the accused during the trap operation, and the recovery of tainted money. The court also emphasized the importance of reliable witnesses and the trustworthiness of the complainant in proving the charges. The judgment resulted in the acquittal of the accused of all charges due to the lack of evidence and benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant and abetment by a private person under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial court found the accused guilty of certain charges but acquitted them of others. The State and the accused filed appeals against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the abetment charges against the accused. It emphasized the lack of reliable evidence and the doubt surrounding the trustworthiness of the complainant's testimony. As a result, the court acquitted the accused of all charges, extending the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial court was correct in holding the accused guilty of misconduct and abetment while acquitting them from the charges of demand and acceptance of bribe and abetment to commit that offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of reliable evidence to prove the charges, the doubt surrounding the complainant's testimony, and the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The court emphasized the importance of trustworthy witnesses and the need for clear evidence to establish the charges.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the accused persons was allowed, and the appeal filed by the State was dismissed. The judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the accused were acquitted of all charges, extending the benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

1. These three criminal appeals arises from the judgment of the trial court in Spl. C.C 81/2011 dated 30.01.2014. Second accused K.M.Raju a private person had filed appeal against the conviction under section 109 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the first accused a public servant had filed appeal against the conviction under section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Whereas the State has preferred appeal against the acquittal of A-1 from the charges under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and acquittal of A-2 from the charge under section 12 r/w 7 of the Prevention of corruption Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell:

(2.1) Thiru. Duraisamy an agriculturist of Panaimarathootham Village in Erode District applied for agricultural electricity service connection on 05.03.2007 to draw water from his bore well. Later he dig a open well and made a fresh application on 13.09.2001 under self finance scheme. He received a notice dated 17.11.2013 from the Tamil Nadu Electicity Board, North Kundam, Erode District to produce certain documents relating to his application. He met Mr. Arun Prasad, the Junior Engineer at TNEB office North Kundadam on 27.11.2013 along with the documents mentioned in the notice. Arun Prasad after verifying the documents informed Duraisamy that his earlier application is for bore well and now he wants service connection to open well, so for the said change the paper has to go to Executive Engineer office for which he has to pay Rs.2,600/- as bribe in addition to the Rs.6000/- for preparing the estimation. Since Duraisamy was not inclined to pay bribe to Arun Prasad, he borrowed money from his relative Chenniappan and gave complaint to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption police at Erode on 28.11.2013. Thereupon, the complaint was taken on for investigation. Next day, after demonstrating the trap proceedings to the witnesses, at about 11.05 A.M, the defacto complainant Duraisamy along with the accompanying witness Mariappan and the trap team reached the office of TNEB, Kundadam. Arun Prasad was not in his seat. So they waited till his arrival. At about 12.45 P.M, Arun Prasad came to the office. Duraisamy and Mariappan went to the room of Arun Prasad and wished him. Arun Prasad enquired Duraisamy whether he has brought the money he asked, Duraisamy took out the money smeared with phenolphphalein and gave it to Arun Prasad. On receipt of the money, Arun Prasad gave it the person next to him (K. M. Raju A- 2) and told him to keep the money, he will get it back afterwards. On receipt of the pre arranged signal from Duraisamy, the trap team entered the room of Arun Prasad, introgated him and recovered the tainted money from Raju, after conducting the sodium corbonate phenolphphalien test on the hands of Arun Prasad A-1 and Raju A-2 and confirming they both have handled the tainted money.

3. The trial court on receipt of the final report, framed the following charges against the accused persons.

(3.1) Charge 1: Against A-1 under section 7 of PC Act. for demand and acceptance of illlegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from Duraisamy on 29.11.2013

(3.2) Charge 2: Against A-2 under section 11 r/w 7 of PC Act for abetting A-1 to commit offence under section 7 of PC Act.

(3.3) Charge 3: Against A-1 under section 13 (2) r/w 13 (10(d) of the PC Act for abusing his position as Public servant, mis-conducted himself by obtaining pecuniary advantage of Rs.4,000/-

(3.4) Charge 4: Against A-2 under section 109 IPC r/w section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act.

4. The prosecution to prove the above charges had examined 15 witnesses, 31 exhibits and 8 material objects. On the side of the defence one witness and 3 exhibits were marked.

5. The trial court found the accused guilty of charges 3 and 4. Convicted the first accused being a public servant for offence under section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and sentenced him under section 13(2) of the Act to under go one

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis