Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1142
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
The State – Appellant
Versus
Vazhivittan and Others – Respondents
Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 314 of 2015
Decided On : 19-03-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.R.L. Sundaresan for A.L. Gandhimathi.
For the Respondent: K.K. Ramakrishnan.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 313, 378 and 379 – Prevention of Corruption Act – Sections 7 and 13 –Evidence Act – Section 154 – Allegations Against Accused – Prosecution Prompting – Respondents herein were charged and tried before learned Special Judge Special Court for trial of cases offences Prevention of Corruption Act and trial court acquitted accused/respondents aggrieved by which present appeal has been preferred by appellant/State assistance of official witnesses and Junior Engineer attached with office of Electricity Board and one other person Sathasivam, Assistant Engineer employed in the office of Tamil Nadu Housing Board, appeared before said Sathasivam were provided with copy of complaint which was read over by them and they ascertained truth and veracity of same from who was also present at office of Pursuant to produced ten numbers which was initially counted by Sathasivam and after explaining details of trap to persons gathered and allowing to interact with defacto complainant – Held, No cavil over proposition of law that it is duty of court to have conceptual fairness bearing in mind the sacrosanct duty of court to arrive at truth on basis of materials available on record – Court has a sacred duty to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected societal and collective interests of one and all is safeguarded perusal of impugned judgment reveals that for flimsy and whimsical reasons, taking into consideration inconsistencies/contradictions/discrepancies which in no way affect root of prosecution theory trial court, brushing aside all material evidence, has went on to hold that prosecution has not proved case and that allegations against accused are not made out which is against well established precedent – Approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety and same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for court to scrutinise evidence more particularly, keeping in mind deficiencies drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in said evidence as a whole and evaluate them separately to determine whether same are completely against nature of evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation rendering it unworthy of belief – Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
1. The accused/respondents herein were charged and tried before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli in Spl. C. No. 11/2014 for the offences u/s. 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’) and the trial court, vide judgment dated 28.4.2015, acquitted the accused/respondents herein, aggrieved by which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State. For the sake of convenience, the respondents 1 and 2 will be referred to as A-1 and A-2, as per their array before the trial court.
2. The facts of the case, as is evidenced from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, could be briefly stated as hereunder:-
PW-3 is a contractor, who was doing contractual works under the Commercial Taxes Department and had paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- towards security deposit, which was held in deposit with the Indian Overseas Bank. PW-3, on 17.6.2003, approached the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Office, Senkottai to get back the money, where he got acquainted with A-1 and A-2, the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and Assistant at the said office, who had demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 200/- respectively for the purpose of processing the forms submitted by PW-3 for getting back the refund. PW-3, however, not willing to pay the amount and accede to the guiles of A-1 and A-2 in demanding bribe for performing their official duties, approached PW-11, the officer attached with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department and gave the oral complaint, Ex.P-5, which was reduced into writing by PW-11, the Trap Laying Officer, in which PW-3 affixed his signature. Further to the said complaint given on 17.6.2003, PW-11 asked PW-3 to come with Five Hundred Rupees on 18.6.2003. PW-11, thereafter, requested the assistance of official witnesses and, accordingly, PW-4, the Junior Engineer, attached with the office of the Electricity Board and one other person, viz. Sathasivam, Assistant Engineer employed in the office of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, appeared before PW-11 on 18.6.2003. PW-4 and the said Sathasivam were provided with the copy of the complaint, which was read over by them and they ascertained the truth and veracity of the same from PW-3, who was also present at the office of PW-11. Pursuant to the same, PW-3 produced ten numbers of Rs. 50/- notes, which was initially counted by Sathasivam and after explaining the details of the trap operation to the persons gathered in the office of PW-11 and allowing PW-4 and Sathasivam to interact with the defacto complainant, PW-3, and after PW-4 and Sathasivam read over the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant, PW-11 proceeded to coat the currencies brought by the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. 500/- containing Ten Fifty Rupee Notes with the chemical Phenolphthalein. After coating the currencies with Phenolphthalein and experimenting with its proper functioning, PW-11, along with the defacto complainant, PW-4 and other members of his team, proceeded to the Deputy Commercial Tax Office, Senkottai.
3. PW-11, instructed PW-4 to watch carefully the unfolding of the sequence of events on PW-3 giving the amounts to A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, PW-3, accompanied by PW-4, entered the office and proceeded to meet A-1, where PW-3 gave the refund form along with Rs. 300/- as bribe amount to A-1. A-1, thereafter, instructed him to meet A-2 and, accordingly, PW-3 met A-2 and gave him the sum of Rs. 200/- as bribe money and PW-3 was assured by A-1 and A-2 that arrangements will be made for him to get the refund money back shortly.
4. Thereafter, the PW-3 came out of the office and as per the prearranged signal, the defacto complainant lifted his dothi and wiped his face, and seeing the signal, the trap laying party reached the office of A-1 and PW-3 along with PW-11, Sathasivam and other trap laying members entered the office where A-1 and A-2 were id
