Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M. Dhandapani, J.
K. Pazhani and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 567 of 2011
Decided On : 05-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : John Sathyan
For the Respondent: Saradha Devi, GA
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act – Indian Penal Code - Section 302 – Offence of murder – Appeal against conviction - Rigorous imprisonment – Anticipatory bail - A-1 is Village Administrative Officer of Village and A-2 is Village Assistant - Defector complainant - It is case of prosecution that defector complainant had submitted an application Ex. P-7 & 9 for measuring his lands and he approached P.W. 9 surveyor who asked him to meet A-1 as A-1 was in possession of land documents – Therefore defector complainant approached A-1 on two occasions viz. for measuring his lands and on first occasion A-1 had demanded as illegal gratification for performing his routine official functions and subsequently demand was reduced - Perturbed at said demand of illegal gratification defector complainant had approached office of Vigilance & Anti Corruption where he met P.W. 10 Inspector Trap Laying Officer and narrated incident and gave a complaint Ex. P-13 based on which a case in crime was registered by P.W. 10 who prepared printed FIR Ex. P-14 - Investigation of case was taken up by P.W. 10 who prepared a trap for trapping A-1 – Held, In such circumstances this Court is of considered view that trial court having committed an error while awarding sentence it is within domain of this Court to correct same for which no appeal is required to be filed by respondents seeking enhancement - An appeal is required to be filed only in case where respondents seek for a higher sentence over and above minimum sentence mandated under statute and not for purpose of awarding minimum sentence mandated under statute once conviction is recorded - In case on hand conviction having been recorded minimum sentence prescribed by statute for said offence having not been awarded this Court is fully empowered to correct same by awarding sentence as is prescribed under statute - Insofar as contention of learned counsel for appellants that no charge having been framed against appellants u/s. 201 IPC trial court has gravely committed an error in sentencing appellants u/s. 201 IPC - A perusal of materials available on record clearly reveals that no charge has been framed against appellants u/s. 201 IPC - In such circumstances it was wholly incorrect for trial court to convict appellants u/s. 201 IPC for which no charge has been framed – Therefore this Court has no hesitation to hold that sentence awarded u/s. 201 IPC is not sustainable and same is liable to be set aside - Criminal appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
M. Dhandapani, J.
1. The appellants are the accused in Spl. Case No. 5 of 2004 and they were charged and tried before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge, Tiruvannamalai, for various offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act') and on being found guilty, they were convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Accused | Section | Sentence |
| A-1 | U/s. 7 & 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act | Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. |
| U/s. 201 IPC | Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. | |
| A-2 | U/s. 12 & 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act | Convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. |
| U/s. 201 IPC
| Convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. |
Though no charge was framed u/s. 201 IPC, the appellants/accused have been convicted and sentenced u/s. 201 IPC. Challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, the appellants are before this Court by filing the present appeal. For the sake of convenience, the accused/appellants will be referred to as A-1 and A-2 respectively.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are culled out hereunder:-
A-1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Chennasamudram Village and A-2 is the Village Assistant. The defacto complainant is Subbarayan (since deceased). It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant had submitted an application, Exs. P-7 & 9, for measuring his lands on 21.7.03 and he approached P.W. 9, the surveyor, who asked him to meet A-1, as A-1 was in possession of the land documents. Therefore, the defacto complainant approached A-1 on two occasions, viz., on 21.7.03 and 6.9.03 for measuring his lands and on the first occasion, i.e., on 21.7.03, A-1 had demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification for performing his routine official functions and subsequently, the demand was reduced to Rs. 1500/- on 6.9.03. Perturbed at the said demand of illegal gratification, the defacto complainant had approached the office of the Vigilance & Anti Corruption, where he met P.W. 10, the Inspector/the Trap Laying Officer and narrated the incident and gave a complaint, Ex. P-13, based on which a case in crime No. 5/2003 was registered by P.W. 10, who prepared printed FIR, Ex. P-14. Investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 10, who prepared a trap for trapping A-1.
3. Accordingly, P.W. 10 requisitioned the services of P.W. 3, an assistant working in the office of the Assistant Director of Panchayat and one Ganeshraj, Junior Superintendent at the office of the Zonal Director of Kadhi & Village Industries, Vellore, for the purpose of laying a trap for catching A-1. Accordingly, on 9.9.03, at about 8.00 a.m., the trap was finalised in the office of P.W. 10, where the defacto complainant, P.W. 3 and Ganeshraj were present. After explaining the details of the trap operation to the persons gathered in the office of P.W. 10 and allowing P.W. 3 and Ganeshraj to interact with the defacto complainant and after P.W. 3 and Ganeshraj read over the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant, P.W. 10 proceeded to coat the currencies brought by the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- containing one Five Hundred Rupee Note and Ten Hundred Rupee Notes, with the chemical Phenolphthalein. After coating the currencies with Phenolphthalein and experimenting with its proper functioning, P.W. 10, along with the defacto complainant, P.W. 3, Ganeshraj and other members of his team, proceeded to Chennasamudram Villag
