Back
2023 Supreme(Mad) 3422
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
S. Iqbal S/o Salimaraickar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Unit – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 711, 717 of 2015
Decided On : 09-10-2023
For the Appellants : R. Bhagawat Krishna, G. Krishnakumar
For the Respondents: K.S. Mohan Dass, N. Danalachoumy
Sanction to prosecute must be granted by a competent authority applying due diligence; mere registration of documents for higher values than guideline values does not per se constitute an offence without proof of dishonest intent.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(a) and 7 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 468 and 34 - Charges against public officials for manipulation of guideline values in property registration - Court found prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention or loss to government, resulting in overturning conviction. (Paras 24)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Sanction to prosecute - Must be granted by a competent authority who applies proper mind, failing which it is defective. (Paras 12)
(C) Evidence - The prosecution must demonstrate that any alleged manipulation was done with dishonest intent to constitute an offence under the relevant sections of law. (Paras 22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. registration misconduct and corruption allegations. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the charges and accused roles. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. evidence supports collusion in document preparation. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. impact of appellant's death on the appeal. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. defense arguments regarding sanction to prosecute. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. analysis of evidence regarding the manipulation of property value. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. insufficient evidence for prosecution's claims of misconduct. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. foundational principles under the prevention of corruption act. (Para 24) |
| 9. outcome of appeals and implications of the judgment. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT :
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. On 27.06.1998, the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Puducherry, registered a case in Crime No.3 of 1998 against Thiru.S.Balasundaram and four others, based on the complaint received from Thiru.Veeraraghavan, District Registrar, Register Office, Pondicherry, addressed through Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Unit, Pondicherry.
2. The complaint disclosed that, Inter Department enquiry conducted had brought to light that, Balasundaram presently working as Assistant in the Office of Deputy Director of Education (Women), Pondicherry, while he was serving as Sub-Registrar at Karaikal, on deputation from 14.07.1994 to 20.08.1997, knowingly had registered deeds/documents improperly and irregularly for pecuniary advantage and extraneous consideration received from the parties. The findings of the preliminary enquiry are as follows:-
Section 47-A of Indian STAMP ACT , 1899 says that:-
“If the registering Officer while registering an instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has reason to believe that the market value of the property which the subject matter of conveyance, gift, release of 'benami right or settlement has not been truely set forth in the instruments, he may after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper stamp duty payable thereon In the order No:723 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Manual Volume II, it has been stated that "47-A of the STAMP ACT provides for a reference from the Registering Officer to the Collector only in respect of deeds of conveyance, exchange and gift."
3. Contrary to Section 47-A of Indian Stamps Act, 1899 had under valued the property below the guideline value or over valued the property above the guideline value and thereby, caused unlawful gain to the Promoter Thiru.Oumar Farook in connivance with the Document Writer Thiru.K.L.Kesavelu and Thiru.S.Iqbal.
4. The said complaint in Crime No.3 of 1998. On completion of investigation, 7 separate final report filed and taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003 to Spl.C.C.No.8 of 2003. This appeal arose from Spl.C.C.No.6 of 2003.
5. The substance of the final report is as below:- The accused S. Balasundaram, (A1) is the then Sub-Registrar of Karaikal Sub-Registry the accused S. Iqbal, (A2) is the document writer, and the accused Y.M.Omar Farook, (A3) is the land promoter respectively.
During the period of his tenure as Sub Registrar of Karaikal Sub-Registry from 14/7/1994 to 20/8/1997, the accused S. Balasundaram used to take bribe, by abusing his position as Sub Registrar, from the document writers and the land promoters in particular and the parties to the documents in general to show some favour to them in the discharge of his official functions resulting in wrongful loss to government.
During the financial year 1995-1996 at the Sub Registrar Office, Karaikal, in furtherance of common intention of all the accused S. Balasundaram the then Sub Registrar of Karaikal Sub-Registry, had made manipulation in the Guide Line Register by increasing the GLR rate meant for the financial year 1995-96 of Karaikal Firka, Keezhavely Village Ward-G, Block-I, T.S.No. 5/3, 5/6 and 6/1 by fraudulently raising the existi
