Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.Ilangovan, J.
Dr.A.S.Ramesh - Appellant
Versus
State through, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.213 of 2019
Decided On : 24-02-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case against dr.a.s.ramesh. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. details of the bribery incident and trap. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. evidence collection during investigation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. testimony regarding stolen money's impact. (Para 13 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. trial court's verdict and sentence details. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. discussion of timings and relevant contradictions. (Para 17) |
| 7. witness testimonies supporting prosecution. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. details on the complaint lodged. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. reliability of witness testimonies. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 10. contradictions and its implications. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. defense arguments regarding motive. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 12. disputes over medical evidence and slips. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 13. clarification on document validity. (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 14. examination of trap procedure. (Para 51 , 52 , 53) |
| 15. witness credibility in the trap event. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 16. debate over evidence reliability. (Para 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 17. discussion on time and location discrepancies. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 18. contradictions in witnesses' statements. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69) |
| 19. testimony regarding recovery process. (Para 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 20. court's considerations in verdict. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 21. conclusions on the case and sentencing. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
JUDGMENT :
G.Ilangovan, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in Special C.C No.3 of 2014, dated 30/10/2018 by the Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
The accused Dr.A.S.Ramesh was working as Senior Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District between 03/08/2001 and 01/03/2005. One Nallammal was admitted as an inpatient in the Female Ward in the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur on 15/02/2005 for her head injury. She was taking treatment as inpatient from 15/02/2005 to 08/03/2005. The accused, who attended on her duty during that period suggested to her husband V.Jothirajan for scanning her head at the Head Quarters Government Hospital, Virudhunagar. When V.Jothirajan requested the accused to give his requisition for CT scan, the accused told him that he would give the letter. On 28/02/2005 at about 04.00 pm, when V.Jothirajan along with his friend M.Marimuthu met the accused at the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur and requested his reference for CT scan, he demanded Rs.300/- as bribe. Not willing to bribe, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent police. Based upon that complaint, a case in Crime No.3 of 2005 was registered for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was arrested in the trap. After completing the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, in Special CC No.3 of 2014. After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused:-
(i)The accused was working as Senior Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur, Virudhungar District between 03/08/2001 and 01/03/2005; On 15/02/2005, the complainant's wife Nallammal was admitted as inpatient for her head injury; The accused, who attended on her duty, suggested for scanning the head injury at the Head Quarters Government Hospital, Virudhunagar; When the complainant requested the accused to give his requisition for CT Scan, he told him that he would give the reference letter; On 28/02/2005, when the complainant along with his friend Marimuthu met the accused at the Government Hospital, Srivilliputur and requested his reference for CT scan, he demanded Rs.300/- as bribe and thereby, the accused committed an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and (ii)In the course of the same transaction, the
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld despite witness hostility, based on credible circumstantial evidence demonstrating bribery by a public servant.
The court upheld the conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt when money is recovered.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, which was upheld through credible evidence in this case.
The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.
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....
Point of law: Proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefore....
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 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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
