Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
P. Achutha Menon – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption and Vigilance, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 511 of 2004
Decided On : 03-09-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. S.Y. Masood
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Ravichandran.
The demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to convict a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The benefit of doubt always goes in favor of the accused.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - The Act defines and punishes corruption-related offenses. Section 7 deals with public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration. Section 13 (i) (b) and 13 (2) deal with criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 12 (2) provides for punishment for abetment of offenses under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000 from the defacto complainant (PW-2) for recommending a No Objection Certificate for obtaining a Fire Licence for his hotel. The trap laying team successfully conducted a trap and recovered the bribe money from the appellant/accused. The Special Court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 7 and 13 (i) (b) r/w 12 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution proved the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe money through the testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, and PW-13. The defence's claim of an inspection during the alleged occurrence was disproved by the evidence of DW-1. The defence's arguments were rejected by the Special Court, which correctly convicted the appellant/accused based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of the bribe amount is not sufficient to convict a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The benefit of doubt always goes in favor of the accused.
Result: The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court are confirmed.
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order of conviction dated 15.03.2004 made in C.C. No. 5 of 2000 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and acquit the accused.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW-2, defacto complainant gave a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption by stating that his father was running a Hotel at Villivakkam, under the name and style of Udipi Krishna Nivas and after completing his M.A. (Economics) from the Loyola College, he was assisting his father in Hotel business. The licence to run the Hotel was to be renewed and one of the condition is that No Objection Certificate from the Fire Service Department had to be obtained with regard to the Gas Lines in the Hotel.
3. The defacto complainant (PW-2) on 28.04.1999, went to the Fire service station at Villivakkam and obtained a form for issuing Fire Licence from the appellant/accused herein. On the same day at 2.30 p.m. the defacto complainant had filled up the form and sought for issuance of No Objection Certificate. On 02.05.1999, one person from Vilivakkam Fire service station, came to the Hotel and directed the defacto complainant (PW-2) to meet the appellant/accused. As he had other works he did not go to the office of the appellant/accused.
4. On 03.05.1999, at about 11.00 a.m. the appellant/accused went to the Hotel and instructed the defacto complainant (PW-2) to come and meet him in the Fire service station with regard to issuance of No Objection Certificate and there he informed the defacto complainant (PW-2) that recommending for the issuance of No Objection Certificate to the Hotel, he has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the appellant/ accused and his superior officers. The defacto complainant after consulting his father and one Jayaraman, decided not to give the amount and he went to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and lodged a complaint against the appellant/accused alleging that unless the amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) is paid, the appellant/accused would not recommend for issuance of No Objection Certificate and therefore, requested the respondent to take action against the appellant/ accused.
5. The respondent on receipt of the complaint registered a case in Cr. No. 2/AC/99/CC-I, against the appellant/accused on 05.05.1999 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On receipt of the complaint, a trap was organized. The respondent preferred a Mahazar at 12.30 a.m. in the presence of two independent witnesses, namely, R. Srinivasan and V. Jagadeesan of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Chennai - 600 034. The defacto complainant (PW-2) brought ten hundred rupee notes of various serial numbers, meant to be given to the appellant/accused. The witnesses were explained about the pre-trap laying proceedings and also demonstrated the same in the presence of the witnesses to the defacto complainant (PW-2). Thereafter, gave instruction to the defacto complainant (PW-2) and the independent witness viz. V. Jagadeesan, PW-3 to go to the office of the appellant/accused and if the appellant/accused once again demanded the bribe money then, the defacto complainant (PW-2) has to handover the money to the appellant/accused and come out of the office and show the pre-arranged signals as per the strict instructions given by the trap laying officers.
6. The defacto complainant (PW-2) was instructed that if the appellant/accused demanded the bribe money then only he has to handover the money, unless he demand the bribe money, the defacto complainant should not handover the money so. As per the instruction PW-2 and PW-3 went to the office of the appellant/accused with the money of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be given to the appellant, at that time PW-3 was also present. Appellant/accused also demanded and accepted the bribe money an
