Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1691
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
S. Vijayaraghavan – Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Kanchipuram – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 219 of 2016
Decided On : 21-04-2023
For the Appellant:R. Thirumoorthy, Advocate. For the Respondent:S. Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate, (Crl.Side).
The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proven beyond reasonable doubt through witness testimony, documents, and scientific analysis, and attempts to rebut the presumption must be substantiated with credible evidence.
Headnote:
Illegal Gratification - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a former Assistant Director of Drugs Control, was prosecuted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a pharmaceutical business owner for license transfers. The trap set by the Inspector of Police led to the appellant's arrest and subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimony, documents, and scientific analysis, to prove the appellant's demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The court dismissed the appellant's explanations and self-serving documents as fabricated evidence.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the demand, discrepancies in witness testimony, and the appellant's attempt to justify the money as a loan. The court also considered the validity of the sanction to prosecute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the appellant's attempts to rebut the presumption failed. The court also found the appellant's fabricated evidence to be exposed and dismissed it as a failed attempt to mislead the investigation.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to serve the remaining period of his sentence.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., pleased to call for the records and set aside the orders passed in Special Case No.6 of 2015 on the file of the Special Judge and Hon''ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, dated 07.03.2016 against this appellant/accused and grant such other or further relieves in the nature of the case.)
1. The appellant Mr.Vijayaragavan is a former Assistant Director of Drugs Control, Tiruvallur. For demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from G.Ashok, Secretary, Tiruvallur District Drugs and Cosmetics dealers Association, he was prosecuted by the State through its Inspector of Vigilance and Anti Corruption.
2. According to the prosecution, on 25/09/2004, Tmt. Tamilselvi, the Inspector of Police, DV & AC, registered the complaint given by Ashok reporting that, he and one Sudharsan were running a Pharma business at Avadi in the name of M/s.Ragavendra Pharma Distributors. His partner Sudharsan died in a road accident on 30/06/2014. So, the partnership was reconstituted inducting Tmt.Anuradha wife of Sudharsan. Thereafter, Ashok and Anuradha applied for name transfer and met the appellant on 23/09/2014. The appellant demanded Rs.40,000/- bribe to transfer the licence of M/s.Ragavendra Pharma Distributors in the name of Ashok and Anuradha. Next day, on 24/09/2014, when Mr.Subramanaiam the brother of the deceased Sudharsan met the appellant for transfer of licence of M/s.Ramson Medical Distributors which stood in the name of the deceased Sudharsan, the appellant demanded additional sum of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, to effect the name transfer of M/s.Ragavendra Pharma Distributors and M/s.Ramson Medical Distributors, the appellant demanded totally Rs.50,000/-. After much persuasion, the appellant reduced his demand and fixed Rs.10,000/- for each application and asked the complainant to bring Rs.20,000/- to his office on 26/09/2014, at about 10.30 am.
3. As a follow up, Tmt.Tamilselvi, Inspector of Police, DV&AC, arranged for trap. Mr.Murganantham and Parthiban were requested to be the shadow witnesses for the trap proceedings. On 26/09/2014, at about 7.00 am, the trap team along with witnesses met at DV&AC Office at Kanchipuram. Before proceeding to the Office of the Assistant Director of Drugs Control at Tiruvallur, she demonstrated the significance of Sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein test to the witnesses. 20 Thousand Rupees notes were smeared with phenolphthalein after recording the serial numbers of those notes and it was entrusted to G.Ashok with an instruction that it must be given to the appellant only if the appellant demands bribe. Muruganatham was asked to accompany G.Ashok to watch the events.
4. At about 8.45 a.m., the team left Kanchipuram and reached Tiruvallur at about 11.00 am. Parked their vehicle 150 meters away from the Office of the appellant. Ashok and Murganantham went to the appellant office. Others took position around the appellant Office and waited for the pre-arranged signal from Ashok. At the appellant Office, Ashok enquired the appellant about his application. The appellant asked whether he has brought the money, immediately Ashok took out the phenolphthalein smeared currency from his pocket and gave it to the appellant. In turn, the appellant received it in his right hand, counted the money with both his hand and kept the money in his left side pant pocket.
5. Ashok came out and gave signal to the trap team who are waiting outside. On receipt of the signal the trap team entered into the office. Ashok identified the appellant to the trap team. Two tumblers of sodium carbonate solution was prepared and the appellant was asked to dip each of his hands separately into the colourless sodium carbonate solution. The colourless solution in those two tumblers turned into pale red colour when the appellant dipped his hands. The hand washed solutions were collected in two separate bottles and labelled as ''L'' and ''R''. Sivapada
