The court emphasized the necessity of timely witness examination to prevent hostility, which undermines the prosecution's case in corruption trials.

ORDER :

(B. PUGALENDHI, J.)

The petitioner, an Inspector of Police of Vadasery Police Station, was arrested in connection with a case in Crime No.7 of 2013 on 28.06.2013 that he has demanded and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.2, who is running a CD shop. The respondent/Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing has filed a final report as against the petitioner and the same was taken on file by the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2014. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses, marked 32 documents and 4 material objects. In conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, by its Judgment dated 28.01.2025, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted and sentenced him as follows:

(i) For the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act , to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment.

(ii) For the offence under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment.

As against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.202 of 2025 and the same has been admitted by this Court on 02.04.2025. The petitioner has also moved this petition to suspend the sentence imposed by the trial Court, pending the appeal.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, an Inspector of Police of Vadasery Police Station, has registered a case as against the defacto complainant/P.W.2 and therefore, this complaint has been foisted as against the petitioner by P.W.2 at the instance of the CD shop owners' association. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that P.W.2, during his cross examination, has admitted that the petitioner was taking bath at the time of trap and the amount of Rs.50,000/- was kept by him in a diary, which was found in a coffee table. According to him, the amount was not handed over to the petitioner as projected by the prosecution case and there was no demand. It is a calculative case foisted by the CD shop owners' association, in order to prevent the petitioner from taking further action as against the CD shop owners' association.

3. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred the evidence of P.W.3, an official independent witness, who accompanied P.W.2 at the time of trap and submits that the evidence of P.W.2, that the petitioner was taking bath at the time of trap, was also confirmed by the evidence of P.W.3. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, there was no demand and there was no acceptance of trap amount as projected by the prosecution. However, the case has been foisted, in order to prevent the petitioner from taking further course of action as against the CD shop owners' association.

4. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the alleged demand made by the accused on 27.02.2013 was also not proved by the prosecution. Even according to the Investigation Officer and other witnesses, the petitioner was not present in the police station as claimed by P.W.2. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the demand as well as the acceptance has not been proved by the prosecution in this case. However, the trial Court, without appreciating the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who turned hostile during the trial, has convicted and sentenced the petitioner erroneously.

5. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on several grounds raised in support of the Appeal and also submits that on completion of the interim suspension granted by the trial Court, the petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court on 02.04.2025