Madras High Court
R.Rajasekaran vs State By The Inspector Of Police on 19 October, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Crl.A.No.712 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 18.09.2024
Pronounced on : 19.10.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.A.No.712 of 2018
R.Rajasekaran .... Appellants / Single Accused
Vs
State by the Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Vellore, Vellore District
(Crime No.5/2004) .... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to call
for the entire records in connection with Spl.Case No.5/2005 on the file of the
learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District,
and set aside the judgment dated 01.11.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Parthiban
for Mr.E.Kannadasan
For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Govt Advocate [Criminal Side]
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.712 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the sole accused/appellant challenging the conviction
and sentence imposed on him by the learned Special and Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District in Spl.Case No.5 of 2005 for offences under
Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case runs as below:
a) The appellant was a Village Administrative Officer. On 13.02.2004,
P.W.2, the defacto complainant approached the appellant for transfer of
patta vis-a-vis the property that he had purchased. The appellant is
said to have made a demand for Rs.3,000/-.
b) Not willing to pay the bribe money, on 16.02.2004, P.W.2 approached
the respondent-police with his Ext.P14 complaint, receiving which,
P.W.14 registered Ext.P10 FIR.
c) On the following day (17.02.2004), early in the morning, P.W.14, the
Trap Laying Officer commenced his pre-trap procedures, and at around
10.10 a.m., he landed in the office of the the appellant with his trap
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
team which included P.W.3 and one Balaraman, both of whom are the
official witnesses for the event.
d) P.W.2 along with P.W.3 met the VAO and paid the amount, which he
had accepted. Wasting no time P.W.4 signalled and alerted P.W.14
and he and his team arrived at the scene and completed the remainder
part of the proceedings. The trap was successful.
e) The investigation was then taken over by P.W.15, who recorded the
statements of witnesses, organised a chemical analysis of the material
objects seized by the forensic experts, received the report from forensic
experts, and laid the final report for offences under Sections 7 and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Charges were duly framed against the appellant, and the prosecution examined
P.W.1 to P.W.15, and marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P14 and M.O.1 to M.O.7. For the
defence, the appellant had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2. It appears from the
judgment of the trial Court that the appellant had taken a defence founded on
non-compliance of Para 47 of V&AC Manual, but the trial Court had overturned
it. Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the appellant for both the charges and
also imposed the sentences which are denoted as below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Case No. Offences Sentences
Section 7 of Prevention Four years rigorous imprisonment with a
of Corruption Act fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months
Spl.C.C.No.5
of 2005 Section 13(2) Four years rigorous imprisonment with a
r/w.Sec.13(1)(d) of fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to undergo
Prevention of Corruption rigorous imprisonment for three months
Act
The sentences are directed to run concurrently. This is now under challenge.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
a) PW2, the defacto complainant makes two alternate statements vis-a-vis
the date on which demand for bribe money was made. In Ex.P14,
complaint, he would allege that bribe money was demanded on 13.02.2004,
but in his cross-examination he would state that only on 16.02.2004 he had
first met the appellant. When demand for bribe money is sine qua non for
fastening criminal liability on the appellant U/s.7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, then it is imperative that the prosecution comes clean
in establishing that the bribe money indeed was demanded on 13.02.2004.
b) Contrary to the claim of PW2, the appellant claims that PW2 had met him
some 15 days earlier, to be precise on 21.01.2004, on which date PW2
insisted for mutation of revenue records in his name on the strength of a sale
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agreement, and when appellant stated that it could not be done since the
document was only a sale agreement, PW2 created a ruckus in his office.
He, therefore, preferred Ext.D1, complaint dated 21.01.2004 to the
Tahsildar, who in turn had preferred a complaint to the local police vide
Ex.D2, dated 21.01.2004. This implies that PW2 had entertained some
grudge against the appellant and this angle of the defence has not been
adequately appreciated by the trial Judge.
c) The appellant, as a V.A.O. does not have the authority to order transfer of
patta, as the same is required to be performed only by the Tahsildar.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Cr. Side) submitted as below:
a) It is not a case where appellant was tried for possessing assets
disproportionate to his known source of income, but for receiving bribe
when he was literally caught red handed by the trap laying officer. A
demand for bribe can hardly be proved by direct evidence, and it has to
be gathered from the next two limbs, which are required to be
established by the prosecution for establishing the offence U/s.7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant has not explained
why he received and accepted a bribe money which was paid by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PW2. If payment and acceptance are there then demand should always
be presumed.
b) So far as the alleged inconsistency in the date of demand as contended
by the appellant is concerned, PW2 was cross examined some seven
years after his chief examination on 12.02.2010, and the offence itself
had taken place some twelve years prior to the date of his cross
examination. Necessarily, some lapses in memory could have
intervened.
c) An offence U/s.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not rest
on the fact whether the V.A.O. has the authority to pass proceedings for
transfer of patta, but whether he has received bribe.
d) The line of defence adopted by the appellant now before this Court
hardly are adequate to rebut the presumption U/s.20 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Discussion and Decision :
6. Rival submissions are carefully evaluated. The case of the prosecution
commences almost innocently. P.W.2, defacto complainant had made Ext.P3
application to P.W.10, Tahsildar for transfer of patta for certain property, that in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
connection therewith on 13.02.2004, he had met the appellant who is only a
Village Administrative Officer, and on that date, the appellant had made a
demand for Rs.3,000/-. And that was the only demand, which eventually led to
the filing of Ext.P10, FIR on 16.02.2004. This was followed by trapping the
appellant on 17.02.2004. If the manner in which the prosecution presents the
evidence on trap is assessed, then it prima facie establishes atleast two of the
foundational facts necessary to constitute an offence under Section 7 of P.C. Act,
namely the payment of the bribe money and acceptance of the bribe money.
Could there be a demand for the bribe money? This is the third of the
foundational fact required for constituting the said offence. After all, when
payment of bribe money and its acceptance are established, necessarily it invites
the application of statutory presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act. The
appellant's effort to rebut the said presumption is founded on the following facts:
a) That earlier to 13.02.2004, on 21.01.2004, P.W.2 had met the appellant
at his office and that P.W.2 is said to have threatened the appellant
which forced him to prefer Ext.D1 complaint against P.W.2, acting on
which P.W.10, Tahsildar had addressed a communication / complaint
(Ext.D2) to the Inspector of Police on the same date, enclosing Ext.D1.
According to the appellant, the terms were not cordial as between
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.W.2 and himself, and hence, P.W.2 had every motive to fix him in
this case.
b) The other fact is that at the time when P.W.2 entered the room of the
appellant on 17.02.2004 to tender the bribe money, there was a small
crowd who had gathered there to collect the free dhoties and sarees
which the Government distributes as part of its Welfare Scheme for
Pongal '2004. So far as this fact is concerned, P.W.2 admits in his
cross-examination that there was a crowd of around 100 people at the
office of the appellant, and in particular, at the time when he was at the
very room where the appellant was, there were four or five persons.
When the same fact was confronted to P.W.3, the shadow witness, he
had deposed that there were none.
c) The line of defence of the appellant was that P.W.2 placed the money
on the table, and P.W.14 forced the appellant to keep it in his pocket
and it is how the trap was force-conducted. To speak to this fact, the
appellant had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2, both the villagers claim that
they were present at the time when P.W.14 conducted the trap.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. While the facts as presented by the prosecution, invite an application of
presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act, yet the appellant only needs to
establish so much facts as might render his defence probable. This would be the
approach on the basis of which this Court would weigh the plausibility or
probability of the appellant's case. To this, it must be added the rule of thumb in
assessing such probability of the defence case is an ordinary course of human
conduct of a reasonble man of law, if he was placed in such circumstances.
8. When P.W.2 was confronted in his cross-examination if he had been to the
office of the appellant on 21.01.2004 and had met him, he merely states that he
did not remember. It has to be underscored that he had not chosen to deny it.
This has to be now appreciated in conjunction with Ext.D1 and Ext.D2. As
earlier indicated, on 21.01.2004, P.W.2 had created a ruckus in the office of the
Village Administrative Officer, which had forced the latter to prefer Ext.D1
complaint to the Tahsildar, on the basis of which P.W.10 had preferred a
complaint to the police (Ext.D2). P.W.10 admits to this fact in his evidence.
When the same was confronted to the Investigating Officer, in his cross-
examination, he would state that he did not probe into this angle as he felt it was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
not necessary.
9. It is in these circumstances, P.W.2 claims that he had met the appellant on
13.02.2004. Very apparentely on that date, the terms between them was not
cordial and it is also equally apparent that P.W.2 was keen to suppress his
meeting with the appellant as well as how he had behaved in the office of the
appellant on 21.01.2004. It has also come out in evidence that Ext.P3 complaint
for tranfer of patta, in relation to which the appellant was alleged to have
demanded the bribe, was to be made only to P.W.10. Therefore, at one level,
P.W.2 had met the appellant in connection with transfer of patta when the latter
did not have authority to pass any proceedings concerning patta, and has also
invited a complaint from P.W.10 to the police, through his conduct in the office
of the appellant on 21.01.2004. Is it now believable that the appellant would
have invited P.W.2 with all the warmth on 13.02.2004 and would have
demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe for doing a job for which he has no authority to
do? Therefore, the demand for bribe money as projected by the prosecution is
unbelievable.
10. But there had been a trap on 17.02.2004, and the prosecution claims that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
money indeed had been recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant. The
shirt of the appellant was seized and produced as M.O.7, and it has also passed
the test. When P.W.2 meeting the appellant on 13.02.2004 is unbelievable, then
it is equally difficult to presume that when P.W.2 entered the chambers of the
appellant on 17.02.2004 with the bribe money, he would have reacted with
courtesy. Admittedly there were about 100 and odd people gathered at the
office of the appellant as well as four or five people were inside the room of the
appellant at that time, which P.W.2 himself admits and this fact becomes very
critical. If only the trap was fair, none prevented P.W.14 to have any one of
those independent witness to attest Ext.P4 seizure mahazar or P.W.14 could have
cited anyone who had gathered there as witness. He did not do so. But D.W.1
and D.W.2 claim that they were there in the crowd and they had seen P.W.14
literally threatening the appellant to take the money placed by P.W.2 on the
table. Except a suggestion that D.W.1 and D.W.2 are falsely testifying for the
appellant, the prosecution has not discredited the version. And if this Court were
to take a comprehensive view of the entire evidence for ascertaining the
believability of the case as presented by P.W.2, then there is every reason why
this Court should not ignore the testimony of D.W.1 and D.W.2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
11. The facts as proved indicate that while the prosecution has not established
the demand for bribe money, its attempt to prove the demand, tender and
acceptance of bribe money is suspect. Necessarily, this Court holds that the
case as presented by the appellant is adequate enough to create a dent in the
presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The benefit of doubt will now
truely go in favour of the appellant.
12. In conclusion, this appeal is allowed and the order and judgment of the
learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, Vellore District,
dated 01.11.2018 in Special Case No.5/2005 is set aside.
19.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
ds
To:
1.The Special Judge and
Chief Judicial Magistrate
Vellore, Vellore District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Vellore, Vellore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
Pre-delivery Judgment in
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
