SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2740

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
R.Lakshmanan - Appellant
Versus
State by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2016
Decided on : 25-06-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.B.Kumarasamy
For the Respondent: Mr.K.Prabakar, APP

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13 and 20 – Trapping - As instructed by trap team defacto complainant and accompanying witnesses went to Village Administrative Office - Accused was not at his office - Accused was contacted over phone and as per his request PW-2 and PW-3 along with trap team went to Bakery Gounder Mill - On seeking defacto complainant accused demanded and accepted bribe amount from defacto complainant - He counted money and kept it in his right side pant pocket in presence of accompanying witness - Immediately after that trap team caught accused - Phenolphthalein test was conducted on fingers of both hands of accused - It proved positive and thereafter tainted money was recovered from accused which was kept in his pant pocket - Recovered money tallied with currency numbers noted in entrustment mahazar - Thereafter pant pocket was also subjected to phenolphthalein test and found positive - sample solutions were collected for chemical analysis test - Pant was seized from accused after proving alternate cloth - Entire trap proceedings were reduced into writing by preparing mahazar - After completion of investigation final report was filed before trial Court - Held, There should not have been major contradictions between evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 - While PW-2 says that accused enquired him whether he had brought money in response he gave money to him - Accused receive it counted it kept in his pant pocket and assured PW-2 that by Monday or Tuesday he will recover amount whereas PW-3 had deposed that on seeing PW-2 accused told him that he is waiting for him and assured that he will soon recover money from company and give it to him and asked to give bribe money - This embellishment in deposition of PW-3 makes this witness unreliable - Yet another reason to disbelieve case of prosecution that PW-3 was present during trap is contradictions between him and trap laying officer regarding nature of alternate dress provided to accused after recovery of pant from accused - PW-3 would say in cross examination that a checked lungi was given to accused as alternate dress but trap laying officer says that accused was given a new dothi - PW-6 who had deposed that he reached trap scene after completion of trap had deposed that he saw accused wearing dothi - Criminal Appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore in Spl.C.C.No.12 of 2011, dated 29.12.2015 convicting the appellant herein to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default, to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to under one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The above sentences imposed on the accused was ordered to be run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:

Thiru.Dhamotharasamy, who was employed in M/s Bullet Paper Boxes Company was retrenched from service due to lock out. He has raised a claim petition before the Labour Court, in which award for Rs.86,187/- was made in his favour. To recover the said money, proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act was initiated. As per the direction of the District Collector, Coimbatore, the Tahsildar issued order to recover the money under Revenue Recovery Act. When the papers were forwarded to the Village Administrative Officer, Vellakinar Village, the appellant/accused R.Lakshmanan, who was the Village Administrative Officer for the concerned Village on 11.02.2008 had demanded Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant Mr.Dhamotharasamy to execute the revenue recovery order issued by the Tahsildar, Coimbatore (North) Taluk, Coimbatore District and after negotiation on 14.02.2008, reduced to Rs.2,000/-. The accused-Village Administrative Officer told the defacto complainant to give Rs.1000/- on 15.02.2008 as initial payment.

3. The defacto complainant Mr.Dharmotharasamy, who happened to be Union Leader of a Labour Union attached to a political party was not inclined to give bribe. So, he gave a written complaint to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore. Based on his complaint, First Information Report was registered by Mr.Karunakaran, Inspector. Trap was arranged on 15.02.2018 between 11.30 hours to 17.05 hours. After demonstrating the significance of phenolphthalein test to the defacto complainant and the other official witnesses namely, 1.Thiru.Manohar, Assistant, Chief Educational Office, Coimbatore and 2. Thiru.Vasudevan, Assistant, Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Coimbatore, the defacto complainant was asked to meet the accused and if he makes demand of any illegal gratification, the currency smeared with phenolphthalein has to be given to the accused. As instructed by the trap team, the defacto complainant and the accompanying witnesses went to the Village Administrative Office. The accused was not at his office. The accused was contacted over phone and as per his request, PW-2 and PW-3 along with trap team went to the Ragam Bakery, Gounder Mill (PO) Coimbatore. On seeking the defacto complainant, the accused demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- from the defacto complainant. He counted the money and kept it in his right side pant pocket between 14.15 hours to 14.20 hours in the presence of the accompanying witness Mr.Manohar. Immediately after that the trap team caught the accused. Phenolphthalein test was conducted on the fingers of both hands of the accused. It proved positive and thereafter, the tainted money of Rs.1,000/- was recovered from the accused, which was kept in his pant pocket. The recovered money tallied with the currency numbers noted in the entrustment mahazar. Thereafter, the pant pocket was also subjected to the phenolphthalein test and found positive. The sample solutions were collected for chemical analysis test. The pant was seized from the accused, after proving alternate cloth. The entire trap proceedings were reduced into writing by preparing mahazar. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed before the tr



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top