Madras High Court
A.G.Srinivasan vs The State Rep By on 9 January, 2024
Crl.A(MD)No.96 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 20.12.2023
Pronounced On : 09.01.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A(MD)No.96 of 2017
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.2602 of 2017
A.G.Srinivasan ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing,
Thanjavur,
Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.5/2005). .. Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in Special Case No.51 of 2014 on
the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and to set aside the
judgment dated 14.03.2017 and acquit the appellant.
Page 1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)No.96 of 2017
For Appellant : Mr.R.Anand
for Mr.N.Subramani
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the sole accused in Special Case No.51 of 2014 on
the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. The learned Special
Judge by judgment dated 14.03.2017, convicted the appellant for the
offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo
3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo 2 years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo
3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d)
r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the same, the
appellant filed this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W2 is the former Office
Assistant in the Special Grade Village Panchayat, Swamimalai. He was
transferred to the Thiruvaiyaru Town Panchayat on 07.12.2004. After his
transfer, his PF account was not transferred to the transferred place,
namely, Thiruvaiyaru Town Panchayat. Therefore, he approached the
appellant who was working as Field Assistant of the said Swamimalai
Special Grade Village Panchayat on 24.03.2005 and requested to transfer
the PF amount, for which, the appellant demanded Rs.1,500/- as bribe
and reduced to Rs.1,000/-. Hence, PW.2 gave the complaint to the
respondent police on 06.04.2005. On receipt of the complaint, the trap
laying officer P.W10 received the complaint Ex.P2 from P.W2 and
registered the case in Crime No.5 of 2005 under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the FIR is Ex.P15 and laid the
trap. The appellant was entrapped upon receipt of the said bribe amount
of Rs.1,000/- and was arrested and thereafter, P.W.11 continued the
investigation and filed a final report. P.W11 continued the investigation
by collecting the evidence and examining number of witnesses and filed
the final report, after getting the sanction from the sanctioning authority.
The same was taken on file by the learned Special Judge in Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.C.No.51 of 2014. The learned trial Judge, after serving copies under
Section 207 Cr.P.C framed necessary charges. After framing necessary
charges, he questioned the appellant under Section 229 Cr.P.C. The
appellant pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
3. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined the
prosecution witnesses, ie., P.W1 to P.W11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P25
and produced Material Objects 1 to 5. On considering the above evidence
of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge examined the accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating circumstances available
against him. The accused denied the same and he has not examined any
witness for defence but marked one document, viz., Ex.D1-phone bill of
P.W2.
4. The learned trial Judge, after considering the above evidence
and the records produced by the prosecution as well as the defence and
the material objects, passed the conviction against the appellant under
Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also
imposed sentence of imprisonment as stated in the first paragraph.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Challenging the same, the appellant preferred this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has no role in respect of the claim made by P.W2 regarding the
transfer of PF account. He was not even entrusted with that duty. He is
only a Field Assistant and he is no way connected with the preparation of
the claim to transfer the PF account to the transferred place, namely,
Thiruvaiyaru Town Panchayat. The learned counsel further submitted
that the alleged demand made by P.W2 on various dates is false and only
it is made with an intention to take vengeance against him on the score
that previously, he had some dispute with the appellant during his service
in the Swamimalai Special Grade Village Panchayat.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
substratum of the prosecution case is that P.W2 made a request to transfer
the PF account. In this regard, for transferring the PF account, there was
no application pending before the appellant's office and the said work of
transferring the PF account of P.W2 was not entrusted to P.W4 or any
officer of the Panchayat including the appellant. Hence, the appellant was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no way connected with the transfer of the PF account of PW.2 and
therefore, the demand of bribe amount to transfer the same is false.
7. It is the specific case of P.W2 that he approached the appellant
earlier on 24.03.2005 to make the request. But, the complaint was lodged
only on 06.04.2005, that too, without any explanation for the delay. The
delay in preferring the complaint itself shows that it is motivated one and
no truth in the version of the complaint.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
conduct of P.W2 before and after his transfer is not good and he filed this
complaint with mala fide intention. Further, it is the specific case of the
appellant that P.W2 borrowed money from him to the tune of
Rs.1,500/- and he received the said amount only as repayment of the debt
amount. Hence, his explanation is furnished at the first instance and the
same was also incorporated in the recovery mahazar. For that reason, the
investigating officer ought to have conducted the investigation in the said
aspect. But, the investigating officer has not conducted any investigation.
As a consequence, fair investigation was not conducted. Ex.P5 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
material document allegedly to be recovered on the date of occurrence.
To prove the contention that the said document, Ex.P5 was written by the
accused after receipt of bribe amount, no evidence was adduced by the
prosecution, ie., to prove the allegation of the prosecution that Ex.P5 was
written by the appellant handwriting expert's opinion is essential one.
They only examined PW.5 and PW.6 to speak about the handwriting of
the appellant and the same was not sufficient to convict the appellant.
The same was further strengthened by the absence of the corresponding
entry in the PF ledger. Therefore, there is a doubt over the existence of
Ex.P5 and hence, the prosecution failed to prove in all aspects and the
same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned
trial Judge, on considering the mere receipt of the amount drawn the
presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
without proof of demand to pass the conviction and sentence. Hence, he
prays this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and
sentence passed by the trial Court.
9. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that according to P.W4, the accused officer was entrusted the work of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
preparation of transfer the PF amount and other dues. Hence, the
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has no
role in the preparation of transfer the PF account is not correct. Ex.P5 is
clearly proved through the evidence of P.W3-independent official
witness, who stated that after the receipt of money, the appellant
calculated the PF amount and also the remaining arrears of the salary as
per the pay commission report. The same was corroborated by P.W5-the
co-employee of the accused officer, who specifically stated that the
entries of Ex.P5 are the handwritings of the accused officer. Therefore,
the prosecution proved the said fact that Ex.P5 was written by the
accused officer after receipt of the bribe amount. Hence, Ex.P5 is proved
in accordance with law.
10. It is the defence of the appellant that he received the amount as
a repayment of the debt amount from P.W2. In that circumstances, he
must establish the defence and not the investigating officer to conduct
the investigation in order to prove his defence. The contention of P.W2 is
concerned, even after transfer of an employee, as per the procedure,
within 15 days from the date of transfer, the PF account should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
transferred to the transferred place and the same was not done. It is the
specific case of P.W2 that the appellant repeatedly asked to meet him
from 24.03.2005 onwards. It is the specific case of the defacto
complainant that he approached the appellant and also the appellant
demanded Rs.1,500/- to attend the claim of P.W2. On 05.04.2005, P.W2
informed the same to P.W4. Hence, it is the case where the demand of the
accused officer was informed in time to P.W4 and he also deposed before
the Court about the demand made by the accused officer. Hence, it is a
case, where demand is clearly established and there is no circumstances
to disbelieve the version of the defacto complainant as alleged by the
appellant. The delay in preferring the complaint is concerned, the
accused officer consistently demanded money from 24.03.2005 and
finally on 05.04.2005. The complainant also approached the Executive
Officer. He directed the complainant to approach the accused officer and
hence without any delay, he made the complaint and hence, the delay is
explained as above narrated.
11. It is the case of the appellant that he received money as
repayment of the hand loan received by P.W2. In the said circumstances,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
it is for the appellant to prove the defence. For proving the defence, no
evidence was produced. Apart from that in the search made in the
appellant's house, there was no evidence about the issuance of hand loan
to P.W2. Hence, the prosecution clearly established the case and the
learned trial Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution
proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. This Court has considered the rival submissions made by both
parties and perused the records and also the precedents relied upon by
them.
13. Following questions arise for consideration of this appeal:
(i)Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of offence under
Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as held
by the learned trial Judge?
(ii)Whether the defence of the appellant that he received the bribe
amount as a repayment of loan has been proved to the extent of
preponderance of probabilities?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
14. It is the admitted case that P.W2 was erstwhile worker in the
Swamimalai Special Grade Village Panchayat. He was transferred to
Thiruvaiyaru Town Panchayat on 29.11.2004. Thereafter, his PF amount
was not transferred to Thiruvaiyaru Panchayat. Hence, he approached the
accused officer/appellant. He demanded Rs.1,500/- as a bribe to transfer
the PF account and he continuously made the demand on 14.02.2005,
02.04.2005, 03.04.2005 and 04.04.2005 in person as well as through
telephone. On 05.04.2005, P.W2 met P.W4-the Executive Officer of the
Swamimalai Special Grade Village Panchayat and disclosed the above
demand made by the appellant for transferring the PF account. P.W4
stated that he was in-charge officer and he advised him to approach the
appellant. Therefore, he approached the appellant on 05.04.2005, again,
the appellant reiterated the demand and reduced the demand from Rs.
1,500/- to Rs.1,000/- and he asked to pay the amount on 06.04.2005 at
02.00 p.m. Hence, PW.2 gave the complaint to the respondent police on
06.04.2005. On receipt of the complaint, the trap laying officer P.W10
received the complaint Ex.P2 from P.W2 and registered the case in Crime
No.5 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
and the FIR is Ex.P15.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. Thereafter, he called the official witnesses, namely, P.W3 and
P.W5 and demonstrated the significance of the phenolphthalein test to
P.W2 and prepared the entrustment mahazar with the currency brought by
the P.W2. After preparation of the entrustment mahazar, P.W10 instructed
P.W2 to approach the appellant and to meet him in his office. Further, he
advised P.W2 to give the tainted money to the appellant, if he demanded
the bribe amount and also advised him to give signal immediately after
receipt of the bribe amount by the appellant. P.W3 was advised to
observe the transaction going to happen between P.W2 and the accused
officer/appellant. After that, the trap team under the leadership of P.W10
dropped P.W2 and P.W3 at some distance away from the office of the
accused.
16. When P.W2 and P.W3 visited the office, the District Collector
was conducting the regular Inspection and hence, P.W10 instructed them
to meet the appellant after completion of the Inspection. Hence, after
completion of inspection, P.W2 and P.W3 entered into the office of the
appellant at 3.30 p.m, and both of them approached the appellant. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant reiterated the demand and received the bribe amount of
Rs.1,000/- in the presence of P.W3. Thereafter, P.W2 gave signal to
P.W10. On receipt of the signal, P.W10 went to the office of the accused
and conducted the phenolphthalein test in the hands of the accused
officer, which turned into pink colour. On ascertaining the handling of
the bribe amount, P.W10 questioned the appellant with regard to the
receipt of the bribe amount. The accused officer accepted the receipt of
the amount and explained that he received the amount from P.W2 as
the repayment of the debt amount and not satisfied with the explanation
given by the appellant, PW.10 completed the trap proceedings by
preparing the mahazar and also recovered various documents and
arrested the appellant and also conducted the house search in the accused
house and found no incriminating materials and hence, he sent the
documents to the concerned Court by altering the FIR into Section 7 r/w
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
17. Proof of demand:
From the above sequence of events, P.W.2 deposed that the
appellant demanded the bribe amount on various dates. He also informed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the above demand of bribe amount to P.W.4. P.W.4 also corroborated the
same and he specifically deposed that P.W.2 informed about the demand
of bribe by the appellant. P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly deposed about the
appellant reiterating the demand on the date of the trap and receiving the
same. In this aspect, the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W4 are cogent
and trustworthy. There is no reason to disbelieve their version. Apart
from that Ex.P5 was prepared by the appellant after receipt of the bribe
amount which was corroborated by the evidence of P.W3 and P.W2.
Further PW3 clearly deposed about the appellant reiterated the bribe
amount and received the same and thereafter, wrote Ex.P5. The
handwriting of the appellant in the Ex.P5 was identified by the co-
employee P.W5. As per the Evidence Act, it is not necessary to prove the
handwriting of the particular person only through the opinion of the
handwriting expert. As per Section 47 of the Evidence Act, it can be
proved through the person who has acquaintance with the handwriting of
the said person. Hence, in this case, the prosecution correctly examined
PW.5, who has acquaintance with the handwriting of the appellant and
the appellant never disputed the same either through the cross-
examination of PW.5 or in his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Apart from that P.W3-independent official witness also deposed that the
appellant wrote the contents of Ex.P5 after the receipt of bribe amount
and the same was corroborated with the evidence of PW.5 who identified
the handwriting of the appellant. Hence, the recovery of Ex.P5 from the
custody of the appellant is the material circumstances to prove the
demand. In all above aspect, the prosecution proved the demand.
18. Proof of acceptance:
As narrated above, the receipt of bribe amount has been proved
through the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.10. The entire
recovery proceedings also not disputed by the appellant. He accepted the
receipt of the amount and hence, the prosecution proved the acceptance
of the amount.
19. The defence of the appellant:
In this case, the prosecution proved the demand and the acceptance
as foundational facts to draw the presumption under Section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act as held by the Hon'ble Constitution Bench
in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
reported in 2023 4 SCC 731. But the appellant took the defence that he
received the amount as a repayment of loan. To prove the said
transaction, the appellant never examined anybody and also he had not
produced any evidence to infer that the accused received Rs.1000/- as a
repayment of debt amount. The investigating agency also made the house
search after the trap. In the house, no material was seized relating to the
payment of the said loan like promissory note etc. Mere plea is not
evidence and hence, the appellant never established his defence that he
received the amount as a repayment of loan. Therefore, the defence of the
accused has not been proved and the learned trial Judge correctly drew
the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and convicted the appellant.
20. Appellant Plea that he has no role in preparation of PF account
and transfer of the plea of the said account:
Insofar as the contention of the appellant that without application
to transfer the PF account, the case of the P.W2 has to be disbelieved is
concerned, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there
was no necessity to make any application to transfer the PF account,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
because within 15 days automatically the PF account has to be
transferred to the transferred place for which he relied Ex.P10. P.W4 also
stated that it would be transferred within 15 days. Hence, the defense of
the appellant that no application was received and hence the evidence of
P.W2 has to be disbelieved, is not accepted. As per the documents as well
as the evidence of P.W4, it is the duty of the concerned officer to transfer
the account to the transferred place.
20.1 Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that he has no role in the preparation of accounts and transfer
of the account is concerned, it is the specific evidence of P.W4 that the
appellant was entrusted with such duty on the day and also he prepared
Ex.P5 after receipt of the bribe amount. In the said circumstances, it is
clear from the evidence of P.W4 that the appellant was holding the charge
on the occurrence date.
20.2 Even otherwise, it is not necessary, to constitute the offence
under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
public servant must do something in connection with his own duty and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
thereby obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as follows in the following judgments:
20.3. Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave v. State of Gujarat,
reported in AIR 1968 SC 1323:
“8.... To establish the offence under Section 161 of the
Indian Penal Code all that prosecution had to establish
was that the appellants were public servants and that they
had obtained illegal gratification for showing or
forbearing to show, in the exercise of their official
functions, favour or disfavour to Ramanlal. The question
whether there was any offence which the first appellant
could have investigated or not is irrelevant for that
purpose. If he had used his official position to extract
illegal gratification the requirements of the law is
satisfied.
20.4. The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. Delhi Admn., reported in AIR 1962 SC
195 has held as follows:
“4. It will be observed that the heading of Section 5 is
Criminal misconduct in the discharge of official duty.
That is a new offence which was created by the Act, apart
from and in addition to offences under the Indian Penal
Code, like, those under Section 161, etc. The legislature
advisedly widened the scope of the crime by giving a very
wide definition in Section 5 with a view to punish those
who, holding public office and taking advantage of their
official position, obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage. The necessary ingredient of an offence under
Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, is the clause “as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the
exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to
any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any
service or disservice to any person, with the Central or
any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of
any State, or with any public servant”, but it need not be
there in order to bring an offence under Section 5 of the
Act home to the accused. The offence under this section
is, thus, wider and not narrower, than the offence of
bribery as defined in Section 161 of the IPC. The words
“in the discharge of his duty” do not constitute an
essential ingredient of the offence. The mistake in the
judgment of this Court in the aforesaid ruling in State of
Ajmer v. Shivji Lal [(1959) Supp. (2) SCR 739] has arisen
from reading those words, which are part merely of the
nomenclature of the offence created by the Statute, whose
ingredients are set out in sub-clauses (a) to (d) that
follow, as descriptive of an essential and additional
ingredient of each of the types of offence in the four sub-
clauses. That that is the source of the mistake is apparent
from the erroneous way in which the section has been
quoted at p. 744 of the Supreme Court Report, in the
paragraph preceding the paragraph quoted above. The
ingredients of the particular offence in clause (d) of
Section 5(1) of the Act are; (1) that he should be a public
servant; (2) that he should use some corrupt or illegal
means or otherwise abuse his position as a public
servant; (3) that he should have thereby obtained a
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; and (4) for
himself or for any other person. In order to bring the
charge home to an accused person under clause (d)
aforesaid of the section, it is not necessary, that the public
servant in question, while misconducting himself, should
have done so in the discharge of his duty. It would be
anomalous to say that a public servant has misconducted
himself in the discharge of his duty. “Duty” and
“misconduct” go ill together. If a person has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
misconducted himself as a public servant, it would not
ordinarily be in the discharge of his duty, but the reverse
of it. That “misconduct”, which has been made criminal
by Section 5 of the Act, does not contain the element of
discharge of his duty, by public servant, is also made
clear by reference to the provisions of clause (c) of
Section 5(1). It is well settled that if a public servant
dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates property
entrusted to him, he cannot be said to have been doing so
in the discharge of his official duty (vide the case of Hori
Ram Singh v. Crown [(1939) FCR 159] . An application
for special leave to appeal from that decision was refused
by the Privy Council in Hori Ram Singh v. King-
Emperor [(1940) FCR 15] . This Court, therefore,
misread the section when it observed that the offence
consists in criminal misconduct in the discharge of
official duty. The error lies in importing the description of
the offence into the definition portion of it. It is not
necessary to constitute the offence under clause (d) of the
section that the public servant must do something in
connection with his own duty and thereby obtain any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It is equally
wrong to say that if a public servant were to take money
from a third person, by corrupt illegal means or
otherwise abusing his official position, in order to
corrupt some other public servant, without there being
any question of his misconducting himself in the
discharge of his own duty, he has not committed an
offence under Section 5(1)(d). It is also erroneous to hold
that the essence of an offence under Section 5(2), read
with Section 5(1)(d), is that the public servant should do
something in the discharge of his own duty and thereby
obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
21. Plea of delay in preparing the complaint:
The delay in the complaint is concerned, as rightly pointed out by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor from 21.02.2005 onwards, P.W2
consistently made the request to the appellant to transfer the PF account.
Finally on 05.04.2005, he informed the said demand made by the accused
officer to PW.4. P.W4 directed him to approach the appellant and when
he approached the appellant, again the appellant reiterated the demand
and reduced the bribe amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.1000/- and also
directed him to produce the said amount on 06.04.2005 at 02.00 p.m.
Hence, he made a complaint on 06.04.2005. Therefore, the delay was
properly explained. In this aspect, it is relevant to note the Hon'ble
Supreme Court Judgement reported in AIR1953SC179:(1953) 1 SCC
220 [Mahadev Dhanappa Gunaki v. State of Bombay].
“4. ..... Thus it is said that although there was a definite
allegation of the alleged offer of bribe made by the
appellants to the two police officers on
24-1-1949/25-1-1949 and although the two police
officers informed their superior officers and the latter
advised the trapping of the appellants, nothing was done
for two months and it is concluded from such inaction
that no bribe had in fact been offered and that this story
was, therefore, false. We see no force in this argument,
because the police authorities had perforce to wait until
the appellants made a further move in the matter. It is
not reasonable to suggest that the police authorities
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
should go out of their way and actively invite bribes in
order to trap the appellants.”
22. Question of Sentence:
Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is aged about 76 years at time of trial and he
is suffering from various old age related ailments, more particularly, he is
suffering from heart problem, this Court is inclined to reduce the
sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trial Judge from two
years to one year.
23.Conclusion:
The prosecution proved its case that P.W.2 was transferred from
Swamimalai Panchayat to Thiruvaiyaru Town Panchayat on 07.12.2004
and to transfer his PF account, the appellant made a demand of bribe
amount of Rs.1,000/- and received the same. The same was proved by the
prosecution to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.10 and Ex.P2,
Ex.P5, Ex.P10, Ex.P15 and etc. Further, the defence of the appellant that
he received the amount as a repayment of loan has not been proved in
accordance with law. Therefore in all aspects, the prosecution proved the
case beyond reasonable doubt as held by the trial Court. This Court does
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant to interfere in the finding of the learned trial Judge in
convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1) d r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of the Corruption Act 1988. Accordingly, questions are
answered against the appellant.
24. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The
conviction passed by the trial Court is confirmed and the sentence alone
is modified to the extent that the appellant shall undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment concurrently for the offence under Section 7 and
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Fine imposed by
the trial Court is confirmed. Bail bond executed by the appellant stands
cancelled. The learned trial Judge is directed to secure the appellant to
undergo remaining period of sentence. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
09.01.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PJL
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam,
Thanjavur District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PJL
Predelivery Judgment made in
and
09.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
