Legitimate evidence must be considered in criminal investigations, including evidence provided by the accused.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 28.04.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7394 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.5405 of 2025 P.N.Bala Manikandan ... Petitioner versus

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai District.

2. D.Senthil Kumar ... Respondents Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption, Madurai District and quash the same as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Anand For R1 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.3 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Madurai. On the complaint of the second respondent, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department has registered a case against the petitioner and one Pandiyarajan, Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam, for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018. Seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.3 of 2025, the petitioner has moved this petition that he is only a Document Writer and he has not made any demand. In fact, when the 2^nd respondent attempted to hand over the tainted money, he refused to receive it. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent deposited the amount in the bank account of the petitioner/2^nd accused and lodged the complaint that a demand was made by the 1^st accused/the Sub Registrar and the 2^nd accused/the petitioner herein on 24.01.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, in his office, has set up a CCTV camera. The CCTV footage would reveal that when the 2^nd respondent attempted to hand over the tainted money, the petitioner has refused to receive it. Admittedly, in this case, the tainted money was deposited in the petitioner's Bank account, based on which, a criminal case has been registered.

3. Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who takes notice for the first respondent, submits that a demand was made by the first accused/the Sub Registrar on 24.01.2025 in the presence of the petitioner/2^nd accused in the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam, Madurai. For this incident, they have already collected CCTV footage from the Sub Registrar's office. Apart from that, there was a second demand on 21.02.2025 by the first accused in the presence of the second accused at the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam, Madurai. The CCTV footage has also been collected by the Investigating Agency from the office of the Sub Registrar, Thirumangalam. Even on the date of trap, the 1^st accused demanded and asked the complainant to wait till the arrival of the petitioner/2^nd accused and both of them instructed the complainant to deposit the demanded money in the account of the 2^nd accused. Accordingly, the complainant/2^nd respondent has deposited the amount in the bank account of the 2^nd accused.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that for the third incident on the occurrence day also, there is a CCTV footage and they also recovered the CCTV footage. Apart from that, the defacto complainant has approached the Sub Registrar Office on 24.01.2025 for registration of documents through the petitioner/2^nd accused. The registration fee and stamp fee were paid to the Government by the 2^nd accused in the name of the complainant through his bank account and they have also collected receipt No.698/2025 in document No.P/Thirumangalam/13/2025, dated 24.01.2025. The demanded amount of Rs.70,000/- was also deposited in the bank account of the 2^nd accus