Madras High Court
State Represented By vs M.Gurusamy on 16 December, 2021
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Special Cell, Salem.
(Crime No.8/AC/2003) ... Appellant
Versus
1. M.Gurusamy, (deceased)
S/o. Mutha Gounder
2. P.Karthikeyan,
S/o. Palanivel
3. V.Lalithambal,
W/o. N.Nagarajan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment of acquittal, dated
01.10.2012 in Special C.C.No.12 of 2004 on the file of the Hon'ble Court
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Namakkal and convict the
respondent/accused (A-1 for offence under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Page No.1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and A-2 -A3 for offences under Sec.
218 I.P.C. as charged.
For Appellant : Mr.C.E.Pratap,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Respondents : Mr.K.Kalaivanan for
Mr. G.D.Johnson for R1
Mr.N.Manokaran for R2
Mr.P.Rajavel for R3
ORDER
This Criminal Appeal has been filed challenging the order of
acquittal of respondents 2 and 3/A2 and A3 passed in Special C.C.No.12 of
2004 dated 01.10.2012 on the file of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate/Special Judge, Namakkal.
2. Totally, there are three accused. A1 was charged for the offence
under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and the 2nd and 3rd
respondents/A2 and A3 were charged for the offence under Sec.218 I.P.C.
r/w 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. However,
during trial, the Trial Court had altered the charge and dropped the charge
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and
framed charge under Sec.218 I.P.C. After trial, the trial court convicted A1
under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and acquitted A2 and A3 from
the charges under Sec.218 I.P.C. Challenging the order of acquittal, the
State is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
3. The case of the prosecution is that A1 was working as Village
Administrative Officer and P.W.4 approached A1 for transfer of patta, for
which, he demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- as a bribe. Hence, P.W.4 had filed
a complaint before the appellant and based on the complaint given by him,
a crime was registered and trap was arranged, in which, A1 caught red
handed, and he was charged with for the offence under Sec.7 of Prevention
of Corruption Act. So far as the respondents 2 and 3/A2 and A3 are
concerned, A2 was a Revenue Inspector and A3 was Zonal Deputy
Tahsildar, who were added as accused on the ground that they have
manipulated the records as if the patta has been issued as early as
21.08.2003. Whereas, actually, the patta was issued only on 30.08.2003.
The Trial Court after full-fledged trial convicted A1, however, acquitted A2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
and A3 on the ground that there is no materials available to show that A2
and A3 have created false records as if the patta was issued on 21.08.2003.
Before the trial court, the prosecution has examined as many as 15
witnesses and marked 24 exhibits. Earlier, the respondents 2 and 3/A2 and
A3 have given a complaint stating that they have been falsely implicated in
this case and the Investigation Officer had harassed them. Based on that
complaint, the District Collector had ordered an enquiry headed by
Revenue Divisional, Officer and the report of the Revenue Divisional
Officer and other relevant records have been marked on the side of defence
as Ex.D1 to D5. After considering the materials, the trial court had
acquitted the respondents 2 and 3. Challenging the same, the present appeal
has been filed.
4. Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for appellant would submit that, even though the patta said to
have been issued on 21.08.2003, from the evidence of P.W.3, Computer
Operator, who uploaded patta, would clearly shows that patta has been
issued only on 30.08.2003 and it is only the respondents, with an intention
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
to help A1, had falsified the records as if patta has been granted on
21.08.2003. The evidence of P.W.12 would clearly proves that the
respondents 2 and 3 have manipulated the records. Without considering the
same, the Trial Court had acquitted the respondents 2 and 3.
5. Mr.N.Manoharan and Mr.P.Rajavel, learned counsels appearing for
respondents 2 and 3/A2 and A3 would submit that, the application has been
filed by P.W.2 on 08.08.2003 and on the very same day, the enquiry was
conducted and statement of P.W.4 was recorded. Thereafter, patta has been
issued on 21.08.2003. Subsequently, the patta has been uploaded on
30.08.2003. Even as per the evidence of P.W.3, he does not know, when the
patta was issued and when it was handed over to him for uploading in the
computer system. Apart from Ex.P7, the application filed by P.W.4, an
enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer and the report
submitted by Revenue Divisional Officer was marked as Ex.D2, which
would clearly shows that patta was issued on 21.08.2003. Therefore,
absolutely, there is no materials to show that the respondents 2 and 3 have
manipulated the records. The Trial Court, after considering all the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
materials, has rightly acquitted the respondents 2 and 3. Hence, there is no
merit in this appeal.
6. Heard rival submissions made by learned Government Advocate
appearing for appellant as well as learned counsels appearing for
respondents 2 and 3 and perused the records.
7. The allegation made against respondents 2 and 3 is that they have
created false records as if the patta was issued on 21.08.2003 to help A1 to
escape from the clutches of law. The Trial Court, after considering entire
materials, had come to a conclusion that there is no materials available to
show that they were aware of the earlier application given by P.W.4 on
08.08.2003, but the application was given only on 21.08.2003 and the same
was processed and patta was issued on the same day. That apart, enquiry
conducted Revenue Divisional Officer and District Collector would also
clearly shows that there is no falsification of records. Therefore, the Trial
Court had come to a conclusion that absolutely there is no materials
available on record that they have falsified the records and the charge under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
Sec.218 I.P.C. was not proved. This Court also considered the materials
available on record carefully and find no error in the order of acquittal.
8. It is settled principal of law that, in an order of acquittal, there is
double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the fundamental
principle of criminal justice delivery system is that, every person, accused
of committing an offence shall be presumed to be innocent, unless their
guilt is proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly if the accused has
secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of their innocence is
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two reasonable
conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate
Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by the trial
Court.
9. In the above circumstances, I find no illegality or perversity in the
judgment of the trial Court and there is no reason to interfere with the order
of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and the same
is deserves to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
10. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of
the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.12 of 2004 dated 01.10.2012 is hereby
confirmed.
16.12.2021
rpp
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Special Cell, Salem.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.298 of 2013
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
rpp
CRL.A.No.298 of 2013
16.12.2021
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
