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

2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 42996

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
N.SESHASAYEE, J
C.RAGHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.213 of 2021



Advocates:
Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram, Senior Advocate for M/s.Shakeenaa.A.G for 2 nd appellant Mr. N.Manokaran for 1 st appellant, Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

The prosecution must establish demand, payment, and acceptance of bribe simultaneously for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Conviction of accused for demanding and accepting bribe - Prosecution failed to establish demand, payment, and acceptance of bribe simultaneously - Evidence of mass raid and discrepancies in investigation raised doubts on prosecution's case - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 6.1, 6.2, 14, 16)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove demand, payment, and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt - Failure to do so results in acquittal. (Paras 6.1, 6.2)

JUDGMENT

The appellants herein were convicted for offences U/s.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , by the learned Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri, in Special C.C.No.04 of 2010. Both were sentenced identically by the trial Court, and each of them were directed to suffer a term of one year S.I. and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo another three months S.I. in prison for offences U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and two (2) years S.I. + Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six (6) months S.I. for offence U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. Aggrieved by the same, these accused persons are now before this Court in these appeals.

2.The case of the prosecution unfolds as below: a) In October, 2008, A1 was working as a Junior Engineer in TNEB at Marandahalli Pudur Village, Palacode Taluk, near Dharmapuri. At the relevant time A2 was working as a foreman in the same office.

b) Some two decades prior to 2008, to be precise on 05.09.1986, a certain Chithe Gounder had applied to the the TNEB seeking electricity connection for agricultural purposes. Since application such as this are taken up based on their seniority, Chithe Gounder necessarily had to wait. However, before he could obtain the electricity connection, he passed away.

c) It is in these circumstances, P.W.2, the son of Chithe Gounder, was served with a notice dated 04.08.2008 from the Executive Engineer, TNEB though certain Ranganagthan, a wire man attached to TNEB. According to P.W.2 this communication was served almost after a month from the date on which it was issued. On receiving the said communication, P.W.2 went to the TNEB office and met A2. He met him on couple of occasions subsequently.

d) Thereafter, as required by the procedure, on 31.10.2008, P.W.2 made Ext.P5 application. On 27.11.2008, P.W.2 again met A2 and the latter would now demand Rs.2,000/- each for him and for A1. This was the first demand.

e) Subsequently, on 05.12.2008 P.W.2 met A1 for the first time. The time was around 9 a.m. in the morning, and according to P.W.2 he had conveyed the demand of A2, to which A1 was alleged to have replied that without money service connection might not be given, and required P.W.2 to arrange Rs.2,000/- as instructed by A2.

f) On the very evening at around 6.00 p.m. (on 05.12.2008), P.W.2 preferred Ext.P2 Complaint, receiving which P.W.13 registered Ext.P49 F.I.R. Soon P.W.13 began to organize the trap that he proposed to set.

g) On 06.12.2008, early in the morning, P.W.13 completed his pre-trap procedures and entrusted Rs.2,000/- (Rs.500 x 3 notes + Rs.100 x 5 notes) all smeared with phenolphthalein powder under Ext.P3 - entrustment mahazar. He then led the trap team to the office of both A1 and A2 which inter alia comprised of P.W.3 and certain Rathnavelu as the shadow witnesses for the event.

h) The trap team landed at near the office of A1 at about 9 am. As planned, P.W.2 accompanied by P.W.3, met A1 in the presence of A2 and handed over Rs.2,000/- planted for the purpose, and tendered it to A1, A1 would now instruct P.W.2 to hand over the money to A2. The money was accordingly paid to A2, and A2 had received the same with his left hand, and then handed it over to A1.

i) Wasting no time, P.W.2 alerted P.W.13 who would now arrive at the scene with the rest of his team members and completed the post trap procedure. Indeed, the trap was successful as the trap test proved positive. The planted currencies were then seized under Ext.P14 seizure mahazar.

j) The investigation was then taken over by P.W.14, who on completing the investigation laid his final report.

3.The trial Court framed appropriate charges against both the accused persons and proceeded to try these charges. During trial, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 to P.W.14, marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P55 and produced MO1 to MO11. For the defence, the appellants have examined D.W.1 to D.W.4 and have also produced Ext.D1 to Ext.D11. Aft

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top