Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1842
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
P. Krishnasamy (died) S/o. Periyannan - Appellant
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption - Respondent
Crl. A (MD) No. 630 of 2007
Decided On : 14-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Thirupathi
For the Respondent: Mr. K.K. Ramakrishnan
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the legal provisions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the context of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand of illegal gratification - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the demand of illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It highlighted the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The court also addressed the issue of charging the accused for two different offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and the interpretation of these provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the demand of illegal gratification by police officers for arranging a requisition letter and releasing a van driver on bail. The trial court convicted one accused based on evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery, despite the de facto complainant turning hostile.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery, and rejected the contention that the de facto complainant's hostility undermined the prosecution's case.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the sanction order, the impact of the de facto complainant turning hostile, and the applicability of legal provisions regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery, along with the testimony of other witnesses, supported the prosecution's case despite the de facto complainant turning hostile. The court also interpreted the legal provisions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court were confirmed.
The conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2007 passed in Special Case No.6 of 2003 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.
2. The Appellant herein, is one among the four accused tried for offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Pending trial one of the accused Andi (A.3) died and hence charges against him got abated. The trial court acquitted two accused namely Samikannu (A.2) and Ayyavoo (A.4) and held the revision petitioner Krishnasamy (A.1) guilty. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, appeal filed. The appellant died pending appeal. On petition, his wife Kalyani has got impleaded herself and substituted as appellant.
3. Facts leading to the appeal :
(i) On 12.08.2002, a complaint was received from one Jawahar of Ayyappan Nagar, Tiruchy alleging that (1) Samikannu, S.I. of Police, (2) Andy, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, (3) Ayyavoo, Head Constable and (4) Krishnasamy, Head Constable, all attached to Thottiam Police Station, Triuchy District demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe to deliver letter of requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector and release the Tempo Traveller van (TN-49-B-0693) driver Jagadeesan on bail, in connection with the road accident happened on 11.08.2002 near Venkateswara Theatre, Thottiam.
(ii) Based on the above complaint, Thiru. Ambigapathi, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, Tiruchy registered First Information Report in Crime No.15 of 2002 at about 09.15 a.m. and organized trap to apprehend the accused persons while receiving bribe. Hence, arranged for two persons Rajkumar and Ramanathan to witness the trap proceedings. In their presence, pre-trap proceeding, such as, sodium carbonate-phenolphthalien demonstration, smearing of phenolphthalein on the currency (20 x 100) and its entrustment to the decoy witness after noting down the currency numbers were done and the same was reduced into writing.
(iii) The de facto complainant Jawahar along with shadow witness Ramanathan went to Thottiam Police Station at about 03.00 p.m. The trap team lead by Ambigapathi followed them and took position waiting for pre- arranged signal.
(iv) Krishnasamy, Head Constable, standing in the front of the police station, called Jawahar and Ramanathan inside the station. Enquired Jawahar had he brought the money? How much?. Jawahar replied he has brought Rs.2000/- and tendered the tainted money. Krishnasamy received it in his right hand, counted with both hands and kept inside his right side pocket of his uniform shirt. Assured Jawahar that after Samkannu, Sub Inspector of Police, return to the station he will get the letter of requisition and give.
(v) Jawahar and Ramanathan came out of the police station. Jawahar gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap team. Ambigapathy, Inspector of Police and his team entered Thottiam Police Station. Krishnasamy was identified by Jawahar and Ramanathan, as the person who received the tainted money. After formal introduction, the hands of Krishnasamy was subjected to sodium carbonate test. The solution turned pink indicating presence of phenolphthalein. Samples from the right hand and left hand test solution were collected separately in two bottles and sealed. On enquiry, Krishnasamy admitted acceptance of illegal gratification and handed over Rs.2000/- kept in his shirt pocket. The pocket portion of the shirt was subjected to sodium carbonate test. The solution answered positive by turning pink. The sample solution of pocket portion of the shirt and the currency Rs.2000/- seized. The serial numbers found in the seized currency tallied with the numbers noted in the entrustment mahazaar. Krishnasamy was arrested for receiving illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- from Jawahar. The residence of Krishnasamy was searched, nothing incriminating was recovered.
(vi) On completion of investigation, sanction to prosecute the accused was obtained and
