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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67347

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
T.V.S.Sarma – Appellant
Versus
State Repst by, Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai. – Respondent
Crl.A.No.385 of 2014 | C.C.No.33 of 2009 | RC MAI 2007 (A) 0024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Shanker
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Baaskaran, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases)

The prosecution has established the accused's guilt for corruption and examination malpractice, affirming the duty of examination authorities to ensure integrity in the process.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 381, and 420 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) - Conviction for criminal conspiracy and cheating in examination malpractice - Appellant sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment for various offences, including criminal conspiracy and corruption. (Paras 1, 7, 23)

(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove that the accused had custody of examination materials and engaged in illegal activities enabling candidates to defraud examination authorities. Evidence, including witness testimonies and forensic examination of answer sheets, established the accused's guilt. (Paras 20, 22)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, an Examination In-Charge at the Mercantile Marine Department, was found guilty of facilitating malpractice during examinations by allowing candidates to tamper with their answer sheets in exchange for money. A systematic scheme was uncovered. (Paras 4, 5, 11)

Findings of Court:
Sufficient evidence established the appellant's involvement in corruption and examination fraud. The court confirmed that the appeal lacked merits and upheld the conviction and sentence. (Paras 23, 24)

Issues: The main issues were proving the fraudulent conspiracy's existence, the appellant’s role in the malpractice, and whether sufficient evidence connected him to the illegal activities. (Paras 1, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence demonstrated continuous and substantiated malpractice grounded in the appellant's direct involvement as the custodian of examination materials, leading to a conviction for criminal conspiracy and corruption. (Paras 22, 23)

Result: Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.

Table of Content
1. details about the examination malpractice and discovery. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. charges framed against the accused based on criminal conspiracy. (Para 5 , 6)
3. defense arguments about the lack of evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. prosecution evidence and burden of proof. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. evidence establishing the accused's custody and malpractice. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
6. timeline of fraud and forensic evidence analysis. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. establishing guilt beyond doubt. (Para 21 , 22)
8. final assessment of proven charges. (Para 23)
9. dismissal of the appeal. (Para 24)

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, dated 11.07.2014, made in C.C.No.3 of 2009. By that judgment, the appellant, who was tried as the sole accused, was found guilty:

(a) of an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment;

(b) of an offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment;

(c) of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment; and

(d) of an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , and sentenced to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment.

For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their order in the Trial Court.

2. On 30.05.2007, the respondent received a complaint from T.Nagarajan, an Engineer & Ship Surveyor-cum-Deputy Director (Technical) at the Mercantile Marine Department, Chennai. The complaint stated that the Mercantile Marine Department is under the Ministry of Shipping, Government of India. The department conducts examinations for Marine Engineer Officers of various grades, from Class-IV to Class-I. These officers, having completed their graduation in Mechanical Engineering and undergone Sea Service or training at Sea, are eligible to sit for the examination. The exam is held centrally across India and comprises two sections: Written and Oral. Question papers are prepared and sent from the Directorate General of Shipping, Jahaz Bhavan, Mumbai. There are only three exam centers nationwide: Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. In Chennai, the Principal Officer-cum-Joint Director General (Technical) is the head of the department and appoints the Examination In-charge, Invigilators, and Evaluators. Evaluators are chosen from a panel approved by the Director General. The written exam lasts three hours, with morning and evening sessions, and is conducted in the Mercantile Marine Department's examination hall in Chennai. Immediately after the exam, the Invigilator collects the answer sheets from candidates and hands them over to the Examination In-charge for safekeeping. The In-charge, after coding (assigning a secret number), supplies the answer sheets to the empanelled Evaluators for assessment. Evaluators conduct their evaluations either in the conference hall or in the department’s examination hall. Once evaluated, answer sheets are returned to the Examination In-charge. Candidates then proceed to the Viva/Oral Test. Those who qualify in both tests receive Certificates of Competency (COC) for sailing in international shipping, which are recognized worldwide.

3. While the accused, T.V.S.Sarma, was serving as Examination In- Charge from April 2005 to January 2006, information about widespread malpractice during the Engineers' examination was received. Two specific instances of cheating were

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top