BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 08.04.2024 Pronounced On : 01.08.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.RC(MD). No.217 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.2494 of 2024 Ganesan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Trichy.

(Crime No.11 of 2017) ... Respondent /Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the order dated 02.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.262 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the Vigilance Court, Tiruchirappalli, by allowing this petition.

For Petitioner : Mrs.P.Malini For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner is the Sole Accused in Special C.C.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the learned Vigilance Court, Tiruchirappalli, filed this revision to set aside the order dated 02.01.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.262 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.1 of

2019 on the file of the learned Vigilance Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Petitioner is said to have committed the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner is working as Firka Surveyor of Srirengam Taluk Office. He is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- to measure the land of the defacto complainant in Crime No. 11 of 2017, registered by the Respondent Police. On the basis of the demand, a trap was successful and the petitioner is said to have reiterated the demand and received the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. On the date of the trap, the Respondent Police recovered a sum of Rs.63,500/- in addition to the trap amount. For the said huge amount, there was no explanation on the side of the petitioner and hence, the same was recovered through the Recovery Mahazer. Thereafter, the investigation was conducted and completed. After completing of the investigation, a final report was filed before the Special Judge, Vigilance Court, Trichy. The said case was taken on file in Special C.C.No.1 of 2019.

Pending the same, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 451 Cr.P.C., seeking the interim custody of Rs.63,500/- recovered from the petitioner, apart from the trap amount. The petitioner specifically stated that this amount was generated from pledging of the jewels of his wife with one Sri Nallandavar Gold Bankers, Manapparai, and hence, he seeks for the interim custody of the said amount. The learned trial judge dismissed the petition on the ground that the amount was the crime proceeds and same was not liable to be returned.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed this revision.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the following submission:

3.1.Admittedly, the demand was only Rs.10,000/- and the same was alleged to be demanded and accepted by the petitioner. The amount recovered from the petitioner, apart from the above said demanded bribe amount is Rs.63,500/-. The said amount was his own income. For which, he produced the receipt pledged by his wife in Sri Nallandavar Gold Bankers, Manapparai, and hence, he seeks for the interim custody of the said amount.

4.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Police, on instructions, filed a counter and submitted that the said amount was not explained by the petitioner at the time of the recovery. Now, they produced some forged receipt to show that the amount was his own income. To substantiate that the receipt was forged, the police obtained the written statement from the said bank and hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition and apart from taking action against him for producing the forged receipt before this Court. 5.This Court considered the rival submission made on either side and also perused the records.

6.Admittedly, the petitioner is facing the allegation that he had demanded and accepted the amount of Rs.10,000/- to measure the land of the defacto complainant in Crime No.11 of 2017. The same was recovered on the date of the trap, on