O R D E R

1. The appellant is the accused who has been convicted by the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the PC Act”) for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

2. According to the case of PW-2, the complainant, a demand was made for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) by the appellant for settling the PF account of M/s. S.S. Annamalai Enterprises Group with which PW-2 was working as Accountant. At the relevant time, the appellant was working as a Section Supervisor in Group-28 Section, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Royapettah, Chennai. The demand was for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand).

3. A trap was laid and according to the case of the prosecution, the trap was successful. Apart from PW-2, the prosecution examined PW-3-Rajasingh Asir, who was working in southern Railways and who was told to accompany the appellant at the time of trap.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant firstly submitted that the Trial Court recorded a finding that though the case of the prosecution was that the demand was for settling the PF account of the organization in which PW-2 was working, the demand was for rectifying the fault of the complainant’s telephone. He would, therefore, submit that the prosecution case is shaken as there is no certainty about the purpose for which the demand was made. Secondly, his submission is that the incident of the trap took place in the office of the Provident Fund Organization where a large number of persons were working and were present in the same hall. None of them have been examined. Thirdly, he relied upon the evidence of PW-1, who is the sanctioning authority and from his evidence it can be inferred that the entire process of settling account was computerised and there was no scope for manual intervention.

5. After having carefully perused the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, we find that the evidence of PW-2 on the two demands and acceptance and the evidence of PW-3 about the demand and acceptance at the time of trap has virtually gone unchallenged. Going by the cross- examination of PW-2, there were cabins in the hall in which the appellant was sitting. The appellant was sitting facing the eastern side on his allotted table and there was a computer on his table. There was no suggestion given either to PW-2 or PW-3 that there was any other official or any other person sitting at the relevant time close to the place where the appellant was sitting who could have heard the conversation between PW-2 and the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that the people who were present in the office heard the conversation between PW-2 and the appellant.

6. So this is a case where demand and acceptance have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. After having independently examined the prosecution evidence, we find that there is absolutely no discrepancy in the prosecution case regarding the work for which a demand for bribe was made. The appellant cannot take advantage of an obvious error committed by the Trial Court while deciding the case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the case against the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. We grant time of four weeks to the appellant to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence.

..........................J.

(ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J.

(UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 11, 2024.

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 2567/2023 S. JAYAVELU APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE RESPONDENT(S)

(IA No. 129134/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 11-01-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN For Appellant(s) Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv.

Mr. Sumit, Adv.

Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G.

Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv.

Mr. Annirudh Sharma II, Adv.

Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv.

Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv.

Ms. Akansha, Adv.

Ms. Rashi Mangal, Adv. Mr. N.C. Zeliang, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. The operative portion of the signed order reads thus:

“6. So this is a case where demand and acceptance have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. After having independently examined the prosecution evidence, we find that there is absolutely no discrepancy in the prosecution case regarding the work for which a demand for bribe was made. The appellant cannot take advantage of an obvious error committed by the Trial Court while deciding the case. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the case against the appellant was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. We grant time of four weeks to the appellant to surrender and undergo the remaining sentence.”

Pending application stands disposed of accordingly.

(ASHISH KONDLE) (AVGV RAMU)

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

[THE SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE]