Crl.A.No.541 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 06.06.2023

Pronounced on: 15.06.2023

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.A.No.541 of 2016

State represented by:

The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras – 600 104.

[V & AC, Cuddalore]

(Crime No.01/2006)

... Appellant/Complainant

/versus/

R.Natarajan,

S/o.Rajamanickam,

Formerly Firka Surveyor,

Taluk Office,

Gingee,

Villupuram District.

Residing at:

Mandapam Street,

Gingee Town & Taluk,

Villupuram District.

... Respondent/Accused

Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., pleased to

set aside the judgment passed in Special Case No.14/2013, dated 30.04.2015 by

the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases at Villupuram and

convict the respondent/accused.

_____________

Page No.1/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.541 of 2016

For Appellant

: Mr.S.Udaya Kumar

Government Advocate, (Crl.Side)

For Respondent

: Mr.S.Saravana Kumar

J U D G M E N T

The Criminal Appeal under consideration is preferred by the State

being aggrieved by the order of acquittal holding the respondent R.Natarajan, Firka

Surveyor not guilty of offence under section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1)(d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, by the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption

Act Cases in Villupuram in Spl.Case.14/2013 vide judgement dated 30/04/2015.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the defecto complainant

Mr.Jayalingam is a farmer having agricultural land around 5 acres in Mattapaarai

and Thiruvathikunnam Villages. To measure his land and fix boundaries, he made

applications twice to the Tahsildar at Chengi. After his earlier two attempts ended

in vain, for the third time, he paid Rs.50/- as fees for survey and made application

on 23/06/2006 enclosing the challan for payment of fees. On the same day, he met

the accused, who was working as Firka surveyor and requested him to measure his

land. The respondent demanded Rs.3000/- to survey the land and told the defecto

_____________

Page No.2/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.541 of 2016

complainant that, unless the money is paid, he will not visit the field and measure

the land; and his application will see the same fate of his earlier two applications.

3. The defecto complainant had again met the accused on 31/07/2006

and requested the accused to consider his application for measuring his land

without bribe. For which, the accused as a concession reduced his demand from

Rs.3000/- to Rs.1,500/-. The defecto complainant, who was not inclined to give

bribe had gone to the Cuddalore Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office and gave a

written complaint on 01/08/2006.

4. Based on the complaint, the Inspector of Police Mr.Venkatesan

after conducting preliminary enquiry and being satisfied about the genuineness of

the complaint registered case in Crime No.1/2006 and proceeded to lay a trap

while the accused receive the bribe money. He arranged two official witnesses by

name Shridar and Rajendran to be witnesses for the trap proceedings. After

conducting pre-trap proceedings in the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office,

demonstrating the significance of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate test, and

noting the numbers found in the currency notes, the marked currency of two

_____________

Page No.3/15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.541 of 2016

Rs.500/- notes and five Rs.100/- notes smeared with phenolphthalein were

entrusted to the defecto complainant, who kept the money in his shirt pocket.

Thereafter, the trap team proceeded to the Taluk Office, Chengi and reached the

Office at about 4 p.m. Their vehicle was parked near KVK Theatre, Chengi. The

defecto complainant and the shadow witness were asked to go to the Taluk office

and give the tainted money, if the accused demands and to come out and give the

prearranged signal, so that the trap team will catch the accused red handed