BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
A.G. Srinivasan - Appellant
Versus
The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur - Respondent
Crl. A (MD) No. 96 of 2017 & Crl. M.P (MD) No. 2602 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Corruption - Transfer of PF Account - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Field Assistant, was convicted for demanding and receiving a bribe of Rs.1,000 to transfer a PF account. The prosecution's case was supported by witness testimony and evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe, rejecting the appellant's defense that the amount was a repayment of a loan. The court also considered the delay in filing the complaint and reduced the appellant's sentence due to his age and health.
Issues: Whether the appellant's demand and acceptance of the bribe were proven, and whether the defense of loan repayment was established.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe, and the appellant failed to establish the defense of loan repayment. The delay in filing the complaint was considered reasonable.
Final Decision: The conviction was confirmed, and the sentence was reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Special Case No.51 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and to set aside the judgment dated 14.03.2017 and acquit the appellant.)
1. The appellant is the sole accused in Special Case No.51 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. The learned Special Judge by judgment dated 14.03.2017, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the same, the appellant filed this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W2 is the former Office Assistant in the Special Grade Village Panchayat, Swamimalai. He was transferred to the Thiruvaiyaru Town Panchayat on 07.12.2004. After his transfer, his PF account was not transferred to the transferred place, namely, Thiruvaiyaru Town Panchayat. Therefore, he approached the appellant who was working as Field Assistant of the said Swamimalai Special Grade Village Panchayat on 24.03.2005 and requested to transfer the PF amount, for which, the appellant demanded Rs.1,500/- as bribe and reduced to Rs.1,000/-. Hence, PW.2 gave the complaint to the respondent police on 06.04.2005. On receipt of the complaint, the trap laying officer P.W10 received the complaint Ex.P2 from P.W2 and registered the case in Crime No.5 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the FIR is Ex.P15 and laid the trap. The appellant was entrapped upon receipt of the said bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- and was arrested and thereafter, P.W.11 continued the investigation and filed a final report. P.W11 continued the investigation by collecting the evidence and examining number of witnesses and filed the final report, after getting the sanction from the sanctioning authority. The same was taken on file by the learned Special Judge in Special C.C.No.51 of 2014. The learned trial Judge, after serving copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C framed necessary charges. After framing necessary charges, he questioned the appellant under Section 229 Cr.P.C. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the prosecution witnesses, ie., P.W1 to P.W11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and produced Material Objects 1 to 5. On considering the above evidence of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge examined the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances available against him. The accused denied the same and he has not examined any witness for defence but marked one document, viz., Ex.D1-phone bill of P.W2.
4. The learned trial Judge, after considering the above evidence and the records produced by the prosecution as well as the defence and the material objects, passed the conviction against the appellant under Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also imposed sentence of imprisonment as stated in the first paragraph. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has no role in respect of the claim made by P.W2 regarding the transfer of PF account. He was not even entrusted with that duty. He is only a Field Assistant and he is no way connected with the preparation of the claim to transfer the PF account to the transferred place, namely, Thiruvaiyaru Town Panc
Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave v. State of Gujarat
Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. Delhi Admn.
Neeraj Dutta Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 4 SCC 731
AI
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving demand and acceptance of a bribe, and the need for the accused to establish any defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
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 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.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which was duly established in this case.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt in corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Acceptance of bribes and the legitimacy of prosecution evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act were affirmed, with modifications to sentencing based on the appellant's health and age.
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as a fact in issue, which can be done through direct evidence, documentary evidence, or circumstantial evidence.
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.