Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 2031
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
K. Adikesavan & Others – Appellants
Versus
The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cuddalore – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 422 & 439 of 2015
Decided On : 12-07-2023
For the Appellants:R. Natarajan, for S. Kamadevan, S. Parthasarathy, Advocates. For the Respondent:S. Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the need for a preliminary inquiry before proceeding against a public servant under the PC Act and the importance of considering all relevant facts and evidence before granting sanction to prosecute.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the violation of Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which deals with public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act and criminal misconduct by a public servant. The court emphasized the need for preliminary inquiry before proceeding against a public servant under the PC Act and the importance of considering all relevant facts and evidence before granting sanction to prosecute.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Adikesavan, and Balasubramanian were tried for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved demand of bribe for processing a family pension application. The trial court found both accused guilty, but the defense argued that the prosecution case was misconceived and not supported by reliable evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt through witnesses and documents. The court noted procedural violations and contradictions in the evidence but emphasized that the evidence was strong enough to hold that the first accused had received money in connection with processing the pension application. The court acquitted the second accused due to insufficient evidence.
Issues: The issues included the demand of bribe, procedural violations, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for preliminary inquiry before proceeding against a public servant under the PC Act and the importance of considering all relevant facts and evidence before granting sanction to prosecute. The court also highlighted the necessity of strong evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of the first accused and directed imprisonment, while acquitting the second accused due to insufficient evidence.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the sentence and conviction imposed on the appellant in Special Case No.5 of 2010 dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Special Judge/Chief Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore and acquit the appellant herein and pass order.
Criminal Appeal Has Been Filed Under Section 374 Of Cr.P.C., Pleased To Set Aside The Sentence And Conviction Imposed On The Appellant In Special Case No.5 Of 2010 Dated 29.06.2015 Passed By The Special Judge/Chief Judge,Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore And Acquit The Appellant Herein And Pass Order.)
Common judgment
1. The appellant Adikesavan, is the first accused in the Special Case No: 5 of 2010 on the file of Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. He along with one Balasubramanian were tried for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Court held both of them guilty and sentenced them to undergo 6 months R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default 1 month R.I for the offence under Section 7 of P.C Act and sentenced to undergo one year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default 3 months R.I for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act, 1988.
2. Being aggrieved, the 1st accused/Adikesavan has preferred Criminal Appeal No.422 of 2015 and the 2nd accused/Balasubramanian filed Criminal Appeal No.439 of 2015. Pending appeal, on 12/01/2023 Balasubramanian-the appellant in C.A.No.439 of 2015 died. His wife Anbarasi filed a petition to get herself impleaded in the place of her deceased husband and pursue the appeal. Her application Crl.M.P.No.8073 of 2023 was allowed by this Court on 14/06/2023.
3. Brief facts of the case:-
Ramasamy a retired Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government School died on 04/10/2008. His wife Selvambal as widow of a Government pensioner was entitled to get family pension as well as other benefits. She sought the help of her brother Mr.Selvarayar, who during the month of December 2008 went to Sub Treasury Office at Virudhachalam and enquired about the procedures to get family pension of his sister. Adikesavan, the Accountant in the Sub-Registrar Office assisted him to fill the forms meant for family pension and directed him to get the attestation and reference in the application Form from the Assistant Primary Education Officer. He presented the form to the Sub-Treasury Officer on 02.01.2009, after getting the attestation. The Sub Treasury Officer, who received the application form put his initial in it and instructed to meet Adikesavan after a week. A week thereafter, when Selvarayar met Adikesavan, he instructed to open a bank account in the name of Selvambal and to produce a photocopy of the bank passbook. On 06/03/2009 he met Adikesavan and gave a copy of the Bank passbook, further Adikesavan asked photo of the applicant and Selvarayar give his sisters photo which he had with him. Selvarayar asked Adikesavan that already two months have gone, when the application process will be completed. At that time, Adikesavan said that, if he give money for office expenses, the work will get done. When Selvarayar asked how much money has to be paid, Adikesavan replied Rs.1,500/-. When, Selvarayar sought clarification whether that money is for Government or for him, Adikesavan replied that, it is for him and other staff in the Office. Further, Adikesavan told to bring money on 12/03/2009 at 10.00 a.m. Selvarayar not interested to give bribe, so he went to Cuddalore and gave a complaint at Vigilance and Anti-Corruption office on 11.03.2009 at 3.30 pm. The Inspector of Police, who read the complaint after ascertaining whether the complaint is true, asked Selvarayar to come on the next day.
4. On 12/03/2009 Thiru.Selvarayar, went to the Vigilance office at 7:45A.M. The Inspector of Police, by the time had arranged for two official witnesses by name Thiru.Srinivasan and Thiru.Ramesh. After formal introdu
