Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
G.Vinoth Kumar Gollapudi – Appellant
Versus
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.489 and 491 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.No.915 of 2017
Decided on : 20-6-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging conviction under customs and corruption laws. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments highlight the lack of evidence for conspiracy. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observed insufficiencies in the prosecution's case. (Para 9 , 10 , 13) |
| 4. the court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 5. final decision leads to acquittal. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, IX Additional City Civil Court, Chennai, the first accused has filed Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2016 and A1 and A3 have filed Criminal Appeal No.489 of 2016.
2. The details of conviction and sentence are as under:-
| Rank | Legal provision | Sentence imposed |
| A1 | Section 120B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | Two years rigorous imprisonment for each offence and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each offence in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. |
| Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | The sentences shall run concurrently. | |
| A2 | Section 120B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. |
| A3 | Section 120B IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. | Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. |
3. Facts of the case in brief are as under:-
i) On a reliable information received by in this office that the accused are bringing dutiable goods into India and the active connivance of public servants who by abuse of their position as public servants, exercise their official influence to get the goods cleared without payment of due Customs duty. Based on this information, a joint surprise check comprising officers of Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai was conducted in the intervening night of 12/13.02.2011 at Arignar Anna International Airport, Meenambakkam, Chennai in the presence of witnesses viz., (1)PW3-Shri.Ram Prasad Reddy, Superintendent, Air Intelligence Unit, Anna International Airport, Chennai. (2)PW5-Shri.M.Victor Wilson, Air Customs Officer, Anna International Airport, Chennai. and (3)Shri.R.Mohana Shanmuga Sundaram, Intelligence Officer, Anna International Airport, Chennai.
ii) The information available was to the effect that Shri.K.A.A.Salam. Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI was facilitating the clearance of passengers coming from abroad by Jet Airways flight No.9W225 from Brussels to Chennai and the officers of DRI are participating in the proceedings.
iii) Accordingly, the officers of CBI, ACB, Chennai and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai viz., PW-6, Shri.P.Rama Mohana Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, Shri.R.Purushotham, Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, Shri.N.Muruganandam, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai, Shri.R.Srinivasan, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai and PW-10, Shri.M.Ebrahim, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai had entered into the Arrival Hall of Chennai International Airport at about 00:00 hrs on13.02.2011.
iv) It was found that Shri.K.A.A.Salam came into the International Airport Arrival Lounge and contacted PW4- Shri.S.Ganapathy, PRO, Customs. Enquiries with Shri.Ganapathy revealed that Shri Ram Prasad Reddy, Superintendent (Customs) (PW3) had requested him that one officer by name Shri.Salam has to be allowed inside. This request was conceded and a pass to enter into the International Airport was issued in the name of Shri.Salaam. Further, Shri.Ram Prasad Reddy, Superintendent, when he was asked as to how he knew Shri Salam, he had stated that though he was aware of the name, he did not meet Shri.Salaa
AI
Facilitation by an official does not constitute criminal misconduct or conspiracy unless there is clear evidence of intent to evade legal obligations.
A discharge petition is only granted if no prima facie evidence exists to support the charges; involvement is determined by the prosecution's presented evidence.
The petitioner, implicated in a conspiracy with a public servant, cannot seek quashment as the charges are backed by substantial evidence linking involvement in corruption.
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 evidence established that passenger declarations were false and a deliberate scheme to evade customs duty, justifying confiscation of goods under the Customs Act.
Confessions of co-accused cannot solely establish guilt without independent corroborating evidence; insufficient cross-examination rights compromise the evidentiary value of witness testimonies.
Exoneration in departmental proceedings does not bar subsequent criminal prosecution if evidence differs; High Court can consider materials from accused to prevent abuse of process.
For convictions under corruption laws, prosecution must conclusively prove demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe alongside establishing a clear conspiracy. Inconsistencies in testimonies undermin....
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
