Crl.A.(MD)No.307 of 2014

Bail Slip

Crl.A.(MD)No.307 of 2014

Tha Appellant/Sole Accused, viz.,Selvakumar, S/o.Manthiram Pillai,

was enlarged on bail, pending disposal of appeal, as per the order

of the Court dated 26.11.2014, made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 in

Crl.A.(MD)No.307 of 2014.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

RESERVED ON : 12.11.2019

PRONOUNCED ON : 12.02.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

Crl.A.(MD)No.307 of 2014

Selvakumar

... Appellant/ Sole Accused

Vs.

State through the Inspector of Police,

Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing,

Thoothukudi.

[Cr.No.08 of 2006]

...Respondent/Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment passed by the Special

Court for Corruption Act

cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Tuticorin, Tuticorin District in Spl.C.No.10 of 2007, dated

07.11.2014.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Kathirvelu,

Senior Counsel,

for Mr.K.Prabhu

For Respondent

: Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan,

Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

The appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence

imposed by the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention

of Corruption Act cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thoothukudi

in SplC.C.No.10 of 2007. By order dated 07.11.2014, the trial

Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under

Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted

and sentenced him to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment

with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to

undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant was also

found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13

(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted

and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a

1/10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Crl.A.(MD)No.307 of 2014

fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment to undergo six

months rigorous imprisonment and the above said sentences are

ordered to run concurrently.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

[i] The defacto complainant, namely, Sivaji [PW2] is a

resident of Keela Nalumoolaikinaru approached the Village

Administrative Officer, namely, M.Selvakumar [Appellant], to do

the needful in transferring the name in the patta and for issuing

new patta in respect of the lands purchased by his aunt one

Kuruvammal. The accused officer asked the defacto complainant to

get the signature of his aunt in a plain paper. Accordingly, the

defacto complainant got the signature of his aunt in a plain paper

and handed over the same to the accused officer on 13.11.2006 at

11.00am and the accused officer received the same and replied that

he would do necessary arrangements.

[ii]Again the defacto complainant met the accused officer

on 29.11.2006 at 5.00pm and enquired about the patta. The accused

officer demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification to make

necessary arrangements to give the name transferred patta. When

the defacto complainant expressed his inability to give Rs.1000/-,

the accused officer insisted him that only if he pays Rs.700/-, he

would make necessary arrangements for issuance of patta. Then the

defacto complainant informed his aunt Kuruvammal about the demand,

she replied that she has no money, asked the defacto complainant

to give the money and she would give him the money later. Since

the defacto complaint [ExP2] was not willing to give bribe, he

lodged a complaint [ExP2] before the respondent Police on

30.11.2006 at 11.30am.

(iii) Based on the complaint [ExP2] a case in Crime No.08

of 2006 was registered against the accused officer for the offence

under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the

Inspector of Police [PW4]/ Trap Laying Officer [TLO] and the FIR

is marked as ExP.18. T