BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.ILANGOVAN, J.
Jesuraj John Bosco - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.185 of 2018
Decided on : 29-01-2025
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment passed in Special CC No.41 of 2014, dated 27/03/2018 by the Special Court for Trial of case under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
A1-Jesuraj John Bosco was working as Commercial Inspector and A2-Ariyamuthu was working as Inspector of Assessment in the Office of the Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalaiyarkovil, Sivagangai District, during the relevant period. The de-facto complainant constructed a new house at Kalaiyarkoil, Somanathamangalam Group, Mandali Village. For getting the electricity connection, on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, he along with his brother-in-law namely Shanmugam met Sangiliraj, Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalayarkovil and gave application Form. He received the application and verified the same, signed and gave to him asking to hand over the application and service connection amount to A1-Jesuraj John Bosco. So, the de-facto complainant and his brother-in-law met A1 and gave the application and service connection amount of Rs.1,600/-. A1 received the same and demanded Rs.300/- as illegal gratification. At the request of the de-facto complainant, it was reduced to Rs.200/-. It was told by A1 that receipt would be given after receiving the bribe amount of Rs.200/- and gave the application and service connection amount of Rs.1,600/- to A2. In turn, A2 also told that receipt would be given after receiving the bribe amount of Rs.200/-. Not willing to bribe, the de- facto complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent. Based upon the complaint, trap was laid. Case in Crime No.3 of 2007 was registered for the offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused were arrested during trap. After completing the formalities of the investigation, filed final report. It was taken on file by the Special Court for Trial cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai, in Special CC No. 41 of 2014 for the offence under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, framed the following charges against the accused persons:-
(i) The de-facto complainant constructed a house at Kalaiyarkoil, Somanathamangalam Group, Mandali Village. For getting electricity connection, on 10/08/2007 at about 10.15 am, he along with his brother-in-law namely Shanmugam met Sangiliraj, Assistant Engineer, TNEB, Kalayarkovil and gave the application Form; He received the application, verified the same, signed and gave to the de-facto complainant asking to hand over the application and service connection amount to A1-Jesuraj John Bosco; The de-facto complainant and his brother-in-law met A1 and gave the application and service connection amount of Rs.1,600/-; A1 received the same and demanded Rs.300/- as illegal gratification; At the request of the de-facto complainant, it was reduced to Rs.200/- and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ; and
(ii) In the course of the same transaction, the accused by using their position as public servant obtained Rs.200/- as pecuniary advantage for themselves from the complainant and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .
3. To that charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial process, on the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses have been examined and 35 documents marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO4 marked. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
5. The case of the prosecution, as narrated through the prosecution witnesses:-
PW1 purchased the property in Mandali village measuring about 5 cents. He constructed a house after getting proper permission. He approached TNEB for temporary service connection. On 10/08/2007 at about 10.30 am, he gave request and application with the Assistant Engineer name
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....
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.
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.
Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld despite witness hostility, based on credible circumstantial evidence demonstrating bribery by a public servant.
Circumstantial evidence can substantiate a prosecution case even if the main witness turns hostile, as upheld by the court in this case.
Public servants are prohibited from demanding bribes to resolve civil disputes, and evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes must be credible and established.
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....
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.