SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4315

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


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Gopalakrishna, Lakshmana Raju for Mr.P.Aju Tagore
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

The prosecution must prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, even if the primary witness turns hostile.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Criminal appeal against conviction for bribery - Accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification for processing an electricity connection application - Evidence established the demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe - Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, even when the complainant turns hostile. (Paras 19, 51, 59)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution bears the burden to establish the elements of demand, acceptance, and recovery in corruption cases, even when witnesses may turn hostile. (Paras 42, 59)

Facts of the case:
The accused were charged with demanding a bribe of Rs.200/- from the complainant for processing an electricity connection application. A trap was laid, leading to their arrest after the bribe was accepted. (Paras 2-12)

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the first accused guilty and sentenced him to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and fines for both offences, later modified to 1 year RI. (Paras 19, 60)

Issues: Whether the demand for bribe was established despite the complainant's hostility and the evidentiary value of the corroborating witnesses. (Paras 48-50)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's evidence, including corroboration from witnesses, sufficiently established the demand and acceptance of a bribe, warranting conviction. (Paras 58-59)

Result: Criminal appeal dismissed with modified sentence.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top