IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
N.Seshachalam, S/o. Numperumal – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.273 & 277 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
Decided on : 25-04-2023
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7, Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) - The court discussed the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the trap procedure, and the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of a Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant for receiving a bribe to process an application for financial assistance under the Rajiv Gandhi Social Security Scheme. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded and accepted Rs.400 as a bribe, which was marked and recovered during a trap operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the testimony of witnesses and the trap procedure, did not sufficiently prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The court also noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and the lack of corroboration for the alleged events.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the prosecution's evidence, the trap procedure, and the inconsistencies in the timeline and testimonies presented by the prosecution and the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe, inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, and the lack of corroboration for the alleged events.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Special Judge and acquitted the accused, ordering the refund of any fines paid and the cancellation of any bail bonds.
JUDGMENT :
PRAYER : Criminal Appeals have been filed under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act) Principal Sessions Judge at Puducherry, passed in Special C.C.No.16 of 2010.
These appeals are filed challenging the order of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Pondicherry, convicting the Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant for receiving Rs.400/- as bribe to forward the application given by one Sivaguru seeking financial assistance under Rajiv Gandhi Social Security Scheme for poor.
2. The said Scheme is meant for widower of the economically weaker section over the death of wife. According to the defacto complainant, (Sivaguru), he lost his wife on 11.01.2009. So, he made an application on 03.03.2009 under the said Scheme. When he met the Village Administrative Officer, Seshachalam(A1), on 09.03.2003, A1 demanded Rs.500/- to forward the application to the Thasildar for processing. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs.500/-, the said Seshachalam has retorted saying for getting Rs.25,000/-, why he hesitate to pay Rs.500/- as bribe. Then Sivaguru gave Rs.100/- to A1 and promised to come back. Not interested to give bribe and get the benefit of the Scheme he has approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Unit, Pondicherry and lodged a complaint reporting about the demand of illegal gratification by A1-the Village Administrative Office.
3. The complaint was taken for investigation and the Inspector of Police prepared proceedings for the trap. He arranged two official witnesses viz., Suriya Prakash Rao and A.V.V.S.Sasthri. On 20.03.2004 in the presence of the two official witnesses pre-trap procedure demonstrating the significance of phenolphthalein-sodium carbonate test in the presence of the witnesses was conducted by the trap laying officer and the same was recorded. The bribe money of Rs.400/- (4 nos. x 100 rupees) was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the pocket of the defacto complainant with an instruction that he should not touch the currency note except while handing over the amount to Village Administrative Officer Seshachalam, if he demands the bribe. The trap team thereafter went to the office of the Village Administrative Officer.
The defacto complainant Sivaguru entered the room of the Village Administrative Officer, gave the tainted money to Village Administrative Officer on his demand and thereafter, he came out from the room and gave the pre-arrange signal by wiping his face with the hand kerchief.
4. On receiving the signal, the trap team entered in to the room of the Village Administrative Officer and enquired with the defacto complainant, whether the tainted money was received by the accused. The defacto complainant informed the Trap Laying Officer that the Village Administrative Officer demanded the money and he gave the money to Village Administrative Officer, who received it and after counting it, gave it to his Assistant Janarthanan(A2), who received that money and kept in his shirt pocket. When the Inspector enquired the Village Administrative Officer about the money, he accepted receipt of the money from the defacto complainant and informed that the money is with the second accused Janarthanan. Thereafter, the said Janarthanan took out the money and gave it to the trap laying officer, who asked one of the member in the trap team to verify the currency numbers found in the money given by the second accused with the numbers noted in the entrustment Mahazar. They tallied. The phenolphthalein sodium carbonate test was conducted in the hands of the first accused and the second accused and also in the hands of P.W.2/the defacto complainant. The hand wash solutions were sent to forensic laboratory for test and the report confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate solution collected from the right and left hands wash of the accu
The judgment reaffirms that errors in charge framing do not vitiate a trial unless they cause prejudice, and emphasizes the importance of corroborative evidence and the implausibility of defenses in ....
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 prosecution must prove the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification, and once these foundational facts are proved, there is a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Co....
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.
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....
The necessity of proving demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.