Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J.
Chandrasekar and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 333 of 2017 and 735 of 2016
Decided On : 27-06-2018
For the Appellant : S. Ashok Kumar, SC for K.S. Karthik Raja
For the Respondent: K. Prabakaran, APP
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13 and 20 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 65A and 65B - Information Technology Act, 2000 - Section 2 - Not Carry RC and TIN - Commercial Tax Check Post Guilty of Offences - In appeals preferred on behalf of first accused and second accused validity of trial Court judgment is challenged on ground that Court has failed to appreciate oral and documentary evidences placed by prosecution in its proper perspective - Material contradictions between prosecution witnesses has not been properly considered by trial Court and trial Court failed to see glaring contradictions in deposition of prosecution witnesses which hits root of matter - Trial Court has failed to see that prosecution has not proved its case through unimpeachable and truthful evidence regarding demand and acceptance non-examination of driver of lorry in which goods of de facto complainant was transported is fatal to prosecution - Since de facto complainant and accused had never met each other case of prosecution that as soon as de facto complainant entered check post accused called him by name is highly improper and unbelievable - PW-8 Junior Assistant of transport check post had deposed that lorry was detained at Transport Department Check Post for non-payment of Green tax - It is also evident from records that said vehicle passed through Transport Department check post – Held, Therefore when demand acceptance as well as recovery is proved coupled with fact that said demand and acceptance does not have any trapping of legal remuneration as defined under Act and in absence of any contra material to infer that said money is not illegal gratification then presumption has to be drawn against appellants - trial Court after considering facts as well as law laid down by Courts had arrived at a right conclusion holding accused guilty - On overall appreciation of evidence on records there is no doubt in minds of this Court that prosecution had proved appellants had demanded illegal gratification from PW-3 and same was accepted and later recovered by PW-20 trap laying officer - This Court on re-appreciation of evidence in light of arguments placed by accused and points raised in memorandum of appeals is of considered view that prosecution has proved guilty of accused beyond any reasonable doubt - Hence these appeals are liable to be dismissed - Appeal is dismissed.
G. Jayachandran, J.
1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Krishnagiri in Spl. C.C. No. 46 of 2007 holding both the accused K. Chandrasekar (A1) Senior Grade Inspector and E. Vijaya (A2) Assistant Commercial Tax Officer working at Hosur Commercial Tax Check Post guilty of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo six months 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 Corruption Act, 1988 and 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 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the legal representatives of Chandrasekar (A1) had preferred Crl.A. No. 333 of 2017 and the second accused Vijaya had preferred Crl.A. No. 735 of 2016.
2. The facts leading to these appeals are as follows:
M/s. Aishwarya Handloom Private Limited a registered trader in hand loom textiles manufacturing at Erode sent 24 parcels of hand loom goods to its customers at Hyderabad and Bombay via, Bangalore through Patel & Co. Transport (Parcel) Service. While the lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-01-A-1287 was passing through the commercial tax check post at Hosur on 14.08.2005, the goods were detained along with the vehicle by Chandrasekar(A1), Senior Grade Inspector on the ground that the invoices does not carry the Registration Certificate(RC) and Tax Index Number (TIN) of the consignee. The lorry driver one Mr. Baba Fakruddin informed Patel & Co. Transport (Parcel) Service about this. Thiru.Mothilal, Branch Manager of Patel Lorry Service at Coimbatore informed Thiru.Srinivasan @ Prakash about this and told him to contact A1(Chandrasekar) over phone. When Thiru.Mothilal called A1(Chandrasekar) and enquired the reason for detaining the consignment, A1(Chandrasekar) informed him that the invoices does not carry Registration Certificate and Tax Index Number and it is liable to be taxed three times the value of the goods and told him to come and meet him in person. When Srinivasan @ Prakash told him that the handloom goods are not taxable, expressed his difficulty to come and meet him in person. Even then, to release the vehicle A1(Chandrasekar) had demanded bribe. Since the driver of the lorry had no enough money with him, A1(Chandrasekar) had given the phone to A2(Vijaya) Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, who had advised Srinivasan @ Prakash to give the money demanded by Chandrasekar(A1). Thereafter, Chandrasekar(A1) has demanded Rs. 10,000/- for released of the lorry. After negotiation, he reduced it to Rs. 7,000/-. When Srinivasan @ Prakash has expressed his inability to come and pay the money immediately, Chandrasekar(A1) has given time to give the bribe till 17.08.2005 and also took promise from Srinivasan in the name of god and his mother and thereafter released the goods and the vehicle.
3. On 17.08.2005 at about 01.37 p.m., Chandrasekar(A1) called the de facto complainant Srinivasan @ Prakash over phone and told him that believing his words, he has released his lorry, but he has not come to Hosur to pay the money. When Srinivasan @ Prakash said that he was not able to come to Hosur because of the demise of his relative, Chandrasekar(A1) told to call him back at 04'O clock. Accordingly, at 04.10 p.m. the de facto complainant Srinivasan @ Prakash contacted the Hosur check post. A2(Vijaya) answered the call and she enquired what happened to the money demanded and gave over the phone to Chandrasekar(A1). Chandrasekar(A1) told Srinivasan @ Prakash that he should come to the commercial tax check post, Hosur on the next day and should give Rs. 7,000/- as bribe. Srinivasan @ Prakash was not inclined to
