Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
G. Venkatapathy - Appellant
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigating Cell, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 178 of 2016
Decided On : 23-03-2023
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand, Acceptance, and Recovery - Section 12 - 7, 8, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - The court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and conviction of the appellant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, and the appellant's explanation for receiving the money was probable. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not available for the prosecution in the case of a charge against a non-public servant and that the prosecution case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a private individual, was convicted for abetting a public servant to demand and receive a bribe under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved the appellant's involvement in arranging water service connections and the demand for a bribe of Rs.10,000 from the defacto complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, and the appellant's explanation for receiving the money was probable. The court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not available for the prosecution in the case of a charge against a non-public servant and that the prosecution case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues included the lack of proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the appellant's role as a private individual, and the absence of evidence to support the charge under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution case against a non-public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not available in such cases. The court also highlighted the importance of the appellant's probable explanation for receiving the money.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and conviction of the appellant, and set the appellant at liberty. Any fine amount paid by the accused was ordered to be refunded, and any bail bond executed by the accused was discharged.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., pleased to call for the records relating to the case in C.C.No.78 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Special Judge for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai and allow this appeal by setting aside the judgment and conviction dated 19.02.2016 passed in the said C.C.No.78 of 2011 on the file of the Learned Special Judge, for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Chennai.)
1.The appellant herein being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court holding him guilty for the offence under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I and with fine of Rs.1000/- in default, one month S.I is before this Court by way of an appeal.
2.According to the prosecution, A.Senthilnathan son of Kanagavalli, for water connection to the house in the name of Kanagavalli arranged the appellant herein, a private individual carrying on profession as plumbing contractor. The appellant took him to Mr.Rajan, Assistant Engineer (hereinafter referred as appellant) at Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred as ''Board''), K.K.Nagar, Chennai. After consulting with Tr.Rajan, Assistant Engineer, the appellant along with A.Senthilnathan went to the house of Kanagavalli got her signature in the application and received Rs.15,000/- for pay connection fees and Rs.200/- for the expenses. Accordingly, the appellant paid the fees of Rs.15,000/- at Board, on 30.06.2008. Thereafter, there was no progress in providing water service connection to the house. Therefore, Senthilnathan went to the Division Office on 10.07.2008 at about 1.30 p.m and met the Appellant. The appellant, after consulting with Rajan Assistant Engineer, informed Senthilnathan that Rajan, Assistant Engineer is demanding Rs.10,000/- as bribe and only if the bribe is given water service connection will be provided. Thereafter, A.Senthilnathan, immediately went to the Office of Rajan, Assistant Engineer and cross verified with him, whether he has to pay bribe of Rs.10,000/- even after paying the connection fees of Rs.15,000/-. Rajan, in response told to A.Senthilnathan that, if he pays the money as demanded by Venkatapathy/A2, he will get the connection immediately or he will not get the water service connection at all.
3. A.Senthilnathan, immediately gone to the District Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office, at R.A.Puram, and given a written complaint. Mr.Ponnusamy, District Superintendent of Police, V&AC, on receipt of the complaint, directed Thiru.S.Ashokan, Inspector of Police, to register a case and taken up for investigation. Accordingly, case has been registered in Crime No.2/AC/08/HQ, under Sections 7 & 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and taken up for investigation by S.Ashokan, Inspector of Police.
4.In the process of investigation, the Inspector of Police, has arranged for two Official witnesses by name Mr.Kumar, Deputy Block Development Officer and Manokaran, Block Development Officer. In their presence, he got the bribe money of Rs.10,000/- from A.Senthilnathan noted the currency number. Thereafter, prepared Sodium Carbonate solution and asked the Official witness Manokaran to dip his hands in the solution. The colourless solution remains unchanged. Thereafter, the bribe money was smeared with phenolphthalein power. Manokaran was asked to handle the currency by counting it using both his hands. Thereafter, Manokaran was asked to dip his left hand and right hand in the Sodium Carbonate solution kept in two different container. The Sodium Carbonate solution colour turned “light red”. Thus, after demonstrating the significances of phenolphthalein sodium carbonate test, entrustment mahazar was prepared. A.Senthilnathan was instructed to take out the tainted money only if Rajan, Assistant Engineer or the appellant Vengadapathy demands the bribe and if they received the money, he should come out f
AI
The prosecution case against a non-public servant must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not available in such cases.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven as a fact, and the prosecution can rely on direct or circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and minor contradictions in evidence ma....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of bribe money without establishing demand is insufficient.
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient without establishing these elements.
Inconsistencies in witness testimonies and infirmities in trap proceedings can affect the prosecution's case, and the benefit of doubt goes to the accused in the absence of proof of demand or recover....
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
