Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
Mariappa - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.440 & 441 of 2023
Decided on : 03-01-2025
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellants : Mr.V.Karthik, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr.Adithya Varadarajan
For the Respondent : K.M.D. Muhilan Government Advocate [Criminal Side]
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of appeals and convictions (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defense arguments regarding evidence and credibility. (Para 4) |
| 3. responses from the respondent (Para 6) |
| 4. judicial observations on the evidence and necessary legal standards. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. evaluation of discrepancies in evidence (Para 10) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of appeals (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT :
This batch of appeals are preferred by A1 and A2, challenging the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption cases (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Thiruvannamalai in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2014 for offences under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). While A1 was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, A2 was convicted for the offences under Section 8 , 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act. The sentences imposed are as below:
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 | Offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment |
| Offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 | To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment | |
| A2 | Offence under Section 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | To undergo six months rigorous imprisonment each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment each |
| Offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988 | To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment |
Besides these accused persons, there was one Gunasekaran, who was arrayed as A3 and the trial Court acquitted him. And during the pendency of the appeals, the appellant in C.A.No.441 of 2023 had passed away and hence the case had abated as concerning A2, and only the case of A1 requires to be considered in this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution runs as below:
a) In 2011 - 2012, A1, the appellant herein was working as a Junior Engineer, PWD (Construction and Maintenance), Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District.
b) Certain Natarajan, the defacto complainant was a Civil Contractor of the PWD. He hails from Ambur in Vellore District but had been given a construction work in Cheyyar. In connection therewith, he had made an earnest money deposit (EMD for short) of Rs.8,47,500/-
c) On 18.10.2010, the said Natarajan had handed over the construction to the PWD. In terms of the contract, which he had entered into with the PWD, he would be entitled to receive the EMD only after the officials of the PWD are satisfied about the quality of construction of the contractor within a period of one year from the date of delivery.
d) On 07.12.2011, Natarajan had visited the appellant/A1 at his office in Cheyyar in connection with the release of the EMD, and A1 was then said to have made a demand of 4% of the total value of the contract of Rs.2.09 Crores as bribe. A2, appellant in Crl.A.No.441 of 2023 was a NMR working in the office of A1. On her part, she was said to have demanded 1% of the contract value.
e) It is in this circumstance, the appellant/A1 had visited Natarajan again on 24.01.2012. Both A1 and A2 were said to be steadfast in their original demand. After a hectic negotiation and bargaining, the bribe money was reduced from a certain percentage of the total value to a fixed sum of Rs.1.0 lakh in cash and another sum of Rs.1.0 lakh through a blank cheque. Out of this, A1's demand was limited to Rs.50,000/- in cash and A2's demand was to the remaining Rs.50,000/-.
f) Unwilling to pay the bribe-money, on 25.01.2012, Natarajan approached the respondents, and gave his Ext.P17 complaint at around 6.15 a.m. to the DSP, who in turn forwarded it to P.W.6, the TLO. On re
For conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove demand, payment, and acceptance of bribe; absence of direct witness testimony complicates establishing these elements....
The ruling emphasizes that directing another person to accept a bribe constitutes acceptance under the Prevention of Corruption Act, validating the conviction based on demand and acceptance of illega....
The prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe, leading to the acquittal of both accused.
The prosecution must establish the elements of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasized that mere recovery....
The acceptance of bribe predicates demand, payment, and intent; a mere trap result does not equate to guilt without credible support of these components.
Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.
The court established that proving demand and acceptance of bribe is essential to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with particular attention to evidence during trap operati....
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe as a sine qua non for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the necessity of corroborative evidence beyond the complainant's testimony....
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
