Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
P. Sathish - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 2012
Decided On : 27-09-2018
Corruption - Impersonation - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 8, Section 420 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for demanding illegal gratification for himself and a public servant for getting an endorsement in the R.C. Book. The trial court acquitted the public servant due to lack of evidence but convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence that the appellant induced the public servant, thus setting aside the conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the court confirmed the conviction under Section 420 IPC but reduced the sentence to four months and enhanced the fine to Rs. 5,000.
Issues: Contradictions in the evidence of the complainant regarding the amounts demanded, lack of evidence of inducement of the public servant, and the appellant's impersonation and receipt of illegal gratification.
Ratio Decidendi: The conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside due to lack of evidence of inducement of the public servant. The conviction under Section 420 IPC was confirmed based on the appellant's impersonation and receipt of illegal gratification.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was set aside, and the conviction under Section 420 IPC was confirmed with a reduced sentence of four months and an enhanced fine of Rs. 5,000.
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence in C.C.No.111 of 2011 [Old C.C.No.29 of 2007] passed by the learned Special Judge for the Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, dated 30.08.2012, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and also finding that the appellant guilty of offence under Section 420 IPC and convicting and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused is a private person and the acquitted accused (A2) was working as a Junior Assistant, Regional Transport Office (West), K.K. Nagar, from 30.04.2001 to 07.02.2005 and that A2 was a public servant as defined under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Tr. V. Kumar (PW2), son of Veluchamy is a resident of Virugambakkam and was working as a driver in a Maruti van bearing Registration No.TN-09-S-2743 owned by Tr. Janakiraman. Tr. V. Kumar (PW2) had approached the Lovata Company to fix a gas kit in the said Maruti van instead of petrol. The company authorities had demanded a total amount of Rs. 11,000/- for the installation of gas kit and Rs. 2,000/- for making an endorsement in R.C. Book regarding fuel conversion of the vehicle. Tr. V. Kumar (PW2) had refused to give Rs. 2,000/- and told the company authorities that he would make the endorsement in the RTO office by himself.
4. On 04.02.2005 Tr. Kumar (PW2) had met the appellant at the RTO office (West) K.K. Nagar and the appellant/A1 had introduced himself as B1-Assistant in the RTO office and thereby PW2 had requested the appellant to make an endorsement in the R.C. Book. At that time, the appellant had demanded Rs. 1,500/- from PW2 as illegal gratification for himself and for A2-Tr.John Bosco [acquitted accused] as a motive or reward for taking steps to get an endorsement in the R.C. Book and PW2 did not want to give illegal gratification, to the appellant and thereby PW2 had given a complaint to the respondent. Based on the complaint, the case was registered on 07.02.2005.
5. Pursuant to the demand on 07.02.2005 at 14.40 hrs, the appellant had reiterated his demand of Rs. 1,500/- for himself and for A2-Tr.John Bosco [acquitted accused] at the RTO office (West) K.K. Nagar, Chennai and in the presence of A2 for getting an endorsement in the R.C. Book. While A2 was fully aware that the appellant/A1 had demanded and obtained money as illegal gratification, thus, the case was registered against A1 and A2 for having committed punishable under Section 420 IPC, and Section 8 r/w Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
6. The prosecution, after investigation filed the final report on 06.02.2007 against the appellant/A1 and A2. The final report was filed against the appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 420 of IPC, u/s 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1982 and in respect of A2 charges were framed for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, the case was forwarded to the Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai, for trial. The trial Court framed the charges against the appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Sec. 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and against the acquitted accused/A2 for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s. 7 o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
