Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
A. Duraisamy - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police, Salem - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 803 of 2016
Decided On : 25-08-2022
For the Appellant:S. Shunmuga Velayutham, Senior Advocate, T. Vijaya Raghavan, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the accused has the burden to rebut the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - 1988 - The court discussed the application of Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and the legal principles related to demand for gratification, acceptance of money as gratification, and recovery of gratification money. The court also highlighted the statutory and factual presumptions available to the prosecution under the Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The prosecution's case was based on the demand for gratification made by the accused and the subsequent acceptance of money as gratification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence based on the appellant's age and health conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the establishment of demand for gratification, acceptance of money as gratification, and the application of statutory and factual presumptions under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution must establish foundational facts of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the accused has the burden to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also emphasized the importance of considering the explanation offered by the accused and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and reduced the sentence based on the appellant's age and health conditions.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, r/w Section 27 of the P.C.Act, to set aside the order and acquit the appellant who has been convicted by the Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem made in Special Case No.22 of 2014, dated 18.11.2016.)
1. The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.
2. This Criminal Appeal is filed against his conviction and the sentence passed by the Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem made in Special Case No.22 of 2014 dated 18.11.2016 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced him to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 6 months; convicted and sentenced him to undergo R.I for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another 6 months for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences are ordered to be undergone by the accused concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution is that:
(a) The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem who investigated the case registered in Crime No.6/AC/2002 has submitted a final report in Court implicating the accused for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(b) The substratum of the final report is that from 10.09.2001 to 27.03.2002, the accused A.Duraisamy served as Commercial Inspector in the offence of the Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M//Vazhappadi South TNEB and as such the accused is a public servant as defined u/s.2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(c) On 23.03.2002 at about 16.00 Hrs. the accused at his office demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant Devarajan, S/o.Angamuthugounder, Vadakkukadu, Veppilaipatti, Vaszhappadi Taluk, for registering the application of the complaint seeking installation of change over switch in the service connection bearing number 31 to facilitate the complainant in drawing water through compressor set from the bore-well newly sunk by the complainant to the well of the complainant situate in S.F.No.44/2. In the afternoon of 26.03.2002, the accused reiterated the demand with the complainant.
d) Subsequently on 27.03.2002, at about 17.00 hrs at his office, the accused in pursuance of the earlier demands demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.500/- from the complainant Devarajan in the presence of official witness, as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for registering the application preferred by the complainant for installing change over switch in service connection 31 to facilitate drawing of water from the new bore-well sunk by the complainant and as such the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
e) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecutions ten witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and 22 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P22. Material objects 1 to 5 were identified by the relevant prosecution witnesses.
4. After trial, the learned Special Judge for the prevention of Corruption Act has laid the conviction and sentence as stated supra.
5. Mr.Shunmuga Velayugham, learned Senior Advocate contended that:
a) The demand for gratification alleged to have been made by the accused with the defacto complainant P.W.2 Devarajan has not been established by the prosecution through independent witness and as such on the basis of the evidence of the complainant P.W.2 Devarajan and that of the official witness P.W.3 Jegadeesan, who are not only interested but also partisan witnesses.
b) In the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification by the accused, mere recovery of tainted money at the insta
