Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 979
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
G. Venkatachalapathy – Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, SPE:CBI:ACB, Chennai – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 389 & 392 of 2014
Decided On : 12-04-2018
For the Appellant :N. Anand Venkatesh, K.V. Sridharan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: K. Sirnivasan, Spl.PP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on reliable evidence and the necessity to examine key witnesses to establish ownership and authenticity of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 120-B IPC, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act - The judgment discusses the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, registration of the complaint, sanction for prosecution, and the recovery of the thali chain. The court analyzed the evidence and found the conviction unsustainable due to unreliable evidence and failure to examine the owner of the thali chain.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by police officers in connection with the rescue of a woman and her son. The appellants were convicted and sentenced by the trial court under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, was unreliable. The failure to examine the owner of the thali chain and the doubts raised about the registration of the complaint and the sanction for prosecution led the court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the evidence, the registration of the complaint, the sanction for prosecution, and the recovery of the thali chain.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the unreliable evidence presented by the prosecution, the doubts raised about the registration of the complaint and the sanction for prosecution, and the failure to examine the owner of the thali chain, which led to the conclusion that the conviction by the trial court could not be sustained.
Final Decision: Both the Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act at Puducherry dated 16.07.2014 was set aside. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any executed by the appellants, shall be refunded to them. M.O.1 (series) broken chain (3 in number) and M.O.2 (series) currency Rs.10,000/- to be confiscated to the State.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants viz., G.Venkatachalapathy (Crl.A.No.389 of 2014) and S.Saravanan (Crl.A.No.392 of 2014), these appeals are preferred challenging the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry passed in Spl.C.C.No.15 of 2010, dated 16.07.2014.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to these appeals are as follows:
One Palani, S/o Veerapathiran, who is the defacto complainant in this case, is the resident of Ariyur Village, Puducherry. He lodged a complaint at Villianur Police Station on 21.06.2010 stating that his wife Tamilselvi and his younger son Diwakar are missing from the Home. The Villianur Police Station took up the investigation and traced Tamilselvi and Diwakar, who were abducted by one Murugan of Tandavamurthikuppam. When Palani went to Villianur Police Station knowing about this fact on 04.07.2010, he was asked to come again on 13.07.2010. The first and second accused, who are the Sub Inspectors attached to Villianur Police Station along with Palani (PW-2) went to T.R.Pattinam near Karaikal to rescue Tamilselvi and Diwakar from Murugan on 14.07.2010 and they were brought back to Villianur. When Tamilselvi and Diwakar were produced before the Magistrate on 15.07.2010, the Court directed Tamilselvi to be under the custody of her parents.
3. It is the case of the defacto complainant (Palani) that, while his wife Tamilselvi left Villianur Police Station along with her parents on 15.07.2010, she informed Palani that the first accused is having her thali chain and told PW-2(Palani) to get it back from him. Therefore, on 16.07.2010, Palani(PW-2) went to Villianur Police Station to get back his wife's chain. Venkatachalapathy (A1) told Palani(PW-2) to come on the next day i.e. on 17.07.2010. When he met A1(Venkatachalapathy) on 17.07.2010, he demanded Rs.10,000/- as reward for rescuing his wife and children and to return the thali chain, which was taken from his wife Tamilselvi. Palani(PW-2) who was not inclined to give bribe, lodged a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chennai on 19.07.2010 alleging that Venkatachalapathy (A1) demanding Rs.10,000/- as reward for rescuing his wife and to return the thali chain. The said complaint Ex.P6 was taken up for investigation and First Information Report (Ex.P25) was recorded under RC MA1 2010 A 0029.
4. Since the complaint made out prima facie case of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigation was commenced by K.Raja, Inspector of Police, CBI/ACB/Chennai. Entrustment Mahazar (Ex.P7) was prepared for phenolphthalein test demonstration in the presence of the witnesses and the defacto complainant and the entrustment of bribe money of Rs.10,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein to Palani @ Vaithiyanathan with specific instruction to him that he should give the money, if it is demanded by Venkatachalapathy (A1). After preparation of the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P7), the defacto complainant along with the trap team and decoy witnesses reached the trap's spot (i.e.) Villianur Police Station, Puducherry at about 17.00 hours on 19.07.2010.
5. The defacto complainant Palani (PW-2) and the decoy witness G.Nedumaran, Manager of Indian Overseas Bank (PW-3) went to Villianur Police Station. Venkatachalapathy (A1) was in his seat. When Palani asked for return of his wife thali chain and told that he has brought Rs.10,000/- as demanded, A1(Venkatachalapathy) extended his right hand and received the tainted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from Palani. After counting the same, he put the money in his right side pant pocket. A1(Venkatachalapathy) told Palani(PW-2) to wait for 15 minutes in the corridor to collect thali chain. PW-2 (Palani) and PW-3 (G.Nedumaran) came out from the police station and gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap team.
6. The trap laying officer, K.Raja (PW-6) along with his team members went inside the police station. A1 (Venkatachalapathy) w
