Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
RAMACHANDRAN — Appellant
Vs.
STATE — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2010
Decided on : 29-10-2018
P.C. Act - Demand of Illegal Gratification - Sections 7 and 13(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: P.C. Act, Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The court discussed the evidence related to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the presumption against the accused under Section 20 of P.C. Act, and the burden of proof in rebutting the presumption.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Head Constable, was found guilty of demanding illegal gratification from a complainant involved in a case and was sentenced to imprisonment and fine under Sections 7 and 13(2) of P.C. Act. The complainant had lodged a complaint against the appellant for assaulting his family members, and the appellant demanded a bribe to minimize the case against the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court found the accused guilty based on evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, despite the complainant turning hostile. The Court held that the recovery of tainted money from the accused, coupled with witness testimony, proved the guilt of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence to arrive at the decision of guilt, considering the hostility of the complainant and the defense's arguments.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the recovery of tainted money creates a presumption against the recipient, which can only be rebutted by preponderance of probability. Mere denial of demand or hostility of the complainant does not discharge the burden of proof.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence, and directed the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
G. Jayachandran, J.
The Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2010 passed in Special Case No.1 of 2005 by the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul is being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.
2. The appellant herein was found guilty for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act. The case against him is that while he was working as Head Constable in Dindigul Taluk Police Station, one Dharmaraj along with his father, mother and wife came to the Police Station on 13.09.2003 and gave a complaint that Selvaraj, Mallika, Kaliammal, Amaravathy and Pitchai assaulted his father, mother and wife and caused injury. For the injuries sustained by them, they have been admitted in the Government Hospital, Dindigul. On receiving the complaint, Ramachandran has registered C.S.R.No.535 of 2003 against Selvaraj, Mallika, Kaliammal, Amaravathy and Pitchai for assaulting and causing injury to Chinnadurai, Rajammal and Subbammal.
3. Selvaraj in turn has given complaint against Dharmaraj, Chinnadurai, Raj and Subbammal. This complaint was also registered by the appellant in C.S.R.No.534 of 2003. On receipt of the complaint and counter complaint from Dharmaraj party and Selvaraj party, the appellant has registered a case in Crime No.892 of 2003 on the file of the Dindigul Taluk Police Station under Section 160 IPC at 09.00 p.m. on 13.09.2003.
4. The injured persons who were admitted in the Government Hospital, Dindigul got discharged on 17.09.2003. When Dharmaraj, went to the Police Station on 20.09.2003 to enquire about his complaint against Selvaraj party, for causing injury to his father, mother and wife, the accused has demanded Rs. 1,500/- as gratification to minimise the case against Dharmaraj and his family members lodged by Selvaraj.
5. Taking advantage of the counter complaint given by Selvaraj, the appellant herein has demanded bribe from Dharmaraj, who in fact, the party more aggrieved in the affray. While so, when Dharmaraj though left the matter as it is, in view of the illegal demand made by the appellant, the appellant was not ready to leave the matter as such. So on 27.09.2003, at about 11.00 p.m., he has gone to the house of Dharmaraj, disturbed him while sleeping and asked why he did not turn up to the Police Station and give the bribe amount of Rs. 1,500/-. Further, he has threatened Dharmaraj that he will foist case against him, if he does not bribe him.
6. On 13.09.2003, Dharmaraj went to the Police Station and met the accused and expressed his difficulty to pay bribe. The appellant reduced the bribe amount from Rs. 1,500/- to Rs. 1,000/- and instructed Dharmaraj to pay the money on the next day. This harassment and illegal demand of gratification has prompted Dharmaraj to lodge a complaint with Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, on 01.10.2003.
7. Based on the complaint given by Dharmaraj, Mr.Arul Amaran, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2003 and organized trap.
8. Pursuant to the request made by the trap laying officer, two independent witnesses namely Subramanian and Ramakrishnan were present in the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. In their presence, phenolphthalein test was demonstrated. Ten 100 rupee notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and entrusted to the complainant Dharmaraj. The de facto complainant Dharmaraj was instructed to proceeded to the Dindigul Taluk Police Station and met Ramachandran, Head Constable. If he demands money, he should give tainted currency to Ramachandran and after he accepts the money, he should come and give the prearranged signal.
9. Accordingly, Dharmaraj accompanied by Subramanian and Ramakrishnan along with the trap team went to the Dindigul Taluk Police Station. Near the Police Station, they stopped their vehicle and the de facto complainant along with Subramaniam were asked to go and meet Ramachandr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
