Madras High Court
State Represented By vs S.Jayaprakash Narayanan on 2 June, 2023
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
State represented by
The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras-104
(Crime No.01/2001
of Cuddalore V & AC) .. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Jayaprakash Narayanan
2.C.Veerasamy ..Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under sections 378 of
Criminal Procedure Code to allow the appeal and set aside the acquittal
judgment dated 30.09.2015 in Special Case No.21 of 2014 on the file of
the Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act,
Villupuram and convict the respondents/accused [A-1 & A-2] as charged.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondents : Mr.V.Arunagiri
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State, being aggrieved by
the order of acquittal of A1 and A2 by the trial Court.
2. The accused A1 and A2 were tried for the offences under
Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act 1988 and Section 109 IPC & 201 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w Section
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 & Section 109 IPC
respectively.
3. The case of the prosecution is that for giving “No Objection
Certificate” to the defacto complainant, A1-Village Administrative Officer
initially demanded Rs.500/-, then reduced to it Rs.400/-. Not interested to
give bribe, the defacto complainant gave a complaint to the respondent
police on 08.02.2001. After the demonstration of phenolphthalein Sodium
Carbonate test to the official witnesses on the next day the Trap Laying
Officer went to the house of A1 at 8.30 a.m., and asked the defacto
complainant and the shadow witnesses to meet A1 and give the tainted
money, if he demands. When they met A1 and offer money along with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
Application Form, A1 did not receive the money, but asked the defacto
complainant to give the money and the Application Form to A2. So the
defacto complainant, the shadow witnesses as well as the trap team were
waiting out side the house of A1 till 1'0 clock for the arrival of A2.
Meanwhile, one Chinnapaiyan, Village Assistant, came to the house of
A1. The defacto complainant give the application form and money to the
said Chinnapaiyan and asked him to fill up the Application Form.
Chinnapaiyan, who received the money and Form, went to the house of
A1 and after getting instructions from A1, he gave back the Form and the
money to the defacto complainant.
4. It is a case of the prosecution that A1 scolded Chinnapaiyan
for receiving money and Application Form, contrary to his instructions
that it should be given to A2. Further case of the prosecution is that, at
about 1.30 p.m., A2 came to the house of A1 and received the tainted
money and Application Form. A2 who entered into the house of A1,
came out immediately saying that he has an urgent work of remitting the
tax collection. So the trap team as well as the defacto complainant and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
shadow witnesses were waiting for A2 to return back to A1 house. When
A2 returned back to A1 house, the trap laying officer entered into A1's
house, searched and from A1, they recovered Rs.400/-, but the currency
number did not tally with the currency number noted in the Entrustment
Mahazar. However, on further enquiry with A2, they came to know that
A2, who received the marked money of Rs.400/-, has gone to one
jewellery shop by name “Shankar Jewellery” at Tirukoilur and gave the
money to the jewellery shop for the due payable by him for the purchase
of jewels a month ago. With these facts, the prosecution has completed
the investigation and filed a final report. The trial Court framed charge
under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act against A1 and under
Section 201 IPC r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act r/w.109 IPC
against A2.
5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 22
witnesses, marked 21 exhibits and 7 Material Objects. The trial Court
after appreciating the evidence has acquitted the accused for want of
proof. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the State
contended that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence
and apply the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The tainted money recovered from the owners of the
jewellery shop and they have deposed that the money was given by A2
towards due for purchase of jewels. The receipt for the purchase of jewels
has also been marked. So, there is no reason for the trial Court to
disbelieve the case of the prosecution that the tainted money recovered
from the jewellery shop is the bribe amount demanded by A1 and
received by A2 on the instructions of A1.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted
that the case of the prosecution bristles with infirmity and improbability.
While it is alleged that A1 demanded bribe to recommend the application
of PW.2, no proof for demand . The tainted money was recovered from
his possession. When A1 has not received the money, there is no reason
for the trap laying officer to enter the house of A1 and search the
premises and recovered the money from him, which is unconnected with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
the marked currency.
8. The intention of the prosecution is to fix A1 and A2. They
claim that the tainted currency was recovered from Shankar jewellery.
Thiyagarajan [PW.5] and Shankar Ganesh [PW.11], the owners of the
Shankar jewellery from whom the alleged tainted currency recovered has
not been subjected to phenolphthalein test to prove that they had handled
the currency.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dutta case has laid that the
demand of bribe must be proved, which is the fundamental fact for any
case, for the prosecution under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Likewise, the acceptance should be in connection with the demand.
It is a case where admittedly the tainted currency was recovered from the
owners of the jewellery shop, who were examined as PW.5 and PW.11.
They are supposed to handle the tainted currency smeared with
phenolphthalein, miserably the Trap Laying Officer has failed to conduct
Phenolphthalein Sodium Carbonate test.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
10. It is contended that the tainted currency was handled by
Chinnapaiyan first, thereafter, by A2. Both are assistants of A1. It is the
specific case of the prosecution and also evidence that A1 did not touch
the money, inspite of money offered to him twice. As far as A2 is
concerned except the positive report of phenolphthalein test, which is
only a proof of handling the tainted currency, there is no allegations of
demand by A2. Mere handling of the tainted money will not be sufficient
to convict A2 for either abetting or for screening evidence for which he
has been tried.
11. This Court, on perusing the evidence of PW.2 and the
documents relied by the prosecution, is of the opinion that the view of the
trial Court is possible and probable and therefore, there is no need to
interfere with the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.
Hence, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
02.06.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rpl
To
1.The Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of
Corruption Act, Villupuram.
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Madras-104.
Crl.A.No.602 of 2016
02.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
