Madras High Court
Tmt.Vanithai vs State Through The on 31 January, 2025
Crl.A(MD)No.444 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 31/01/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.A(MD)No.444 of 2018
Tmt.Vanithai : Appellant/A1
Vs.
State through the
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Theni.
(In Crime No.1 of 2009) : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section
378(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Theni, in
Special Case No.5 of 2014, dated 30/08/2018.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy
for Mr.T.Antony Arulraj
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
J U D G M E N T
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment
of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Theni, in
Special Case NO.5 of 2014, dated 30/08/2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-
(i)A1 while holding additional charge as Junior
Engineer in Pannaipuram Town Panchayat, was in-charge of
the construction work that was being carried out by the
complainant. On the completion of the said construction
work, the complainant approached her for issuance of the
completion certificate required for claiming the bill
amount.
(ii)It was alleged that A1 demanded Rs.25,000/- at
about 02.00 pm, on 10/02/2009 from PW2 as bribe for issuing
the said completion certificate. When the complainant
explained his financial position, it was reduced to
Rs.12,000/- saying that she and Assistant Executive
Engineer would take Rs.5,000/- each, the balance amount
would be given to A2. She further instructed him to pay the
amount of Rs.12,000/- on 10/02/2009. Not willing to bribe,
he lodged a complaint. Based upon the complaint, trap was
laid. Case in Crime No.1 of 2009 was registered under
section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused
were arrested during trap. After completing the formalities
of the investigation, final report was filed. It was taken
on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge for
Prevention of Corruption Act, Theni, in Special CC No.5 of
2014 for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
After completing 207 Cr.P.C proceedings, the following
charges were framed against the accused persons:-
(i)The first accused while she holding
additional charge as Junior Engineer in
Pannaipuram Town Panchayat, was in-charge of the
construction work that was being carried out by
the complainant; On the completion of the said
construction work, complainant approached her for
issuance of the completion certificate required
for claiming the bill amount; at that time, A1
alleged to have demanded Rs.25,000/- at about
02.00 pm, on 10/02/2009 as bribe for issuing
completion certificate and then it was reduced to
Rs.12,000/- and thereby the accused committed an
offence punishable under section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act; and
(ii)In the course of the same transaction,
the accused by using their position as public
servants obtained Rs.12,000/- as pecuniary
advantage for themselves from the complainant and
thereby the accused committed an offence
punishable under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.To that charges, the accused pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.During the trial process, on the side of the
prosecution, 15 witnesses have been examined and 18
documents marked. Apart from that, MO1 to MO3 marked. On
the side of the accused, one witness was examined, but no
document was marked.
5.The case of the prosecution, as narrated through
the prosecution witnesses:-
PW2 is the contractor working in Pannaipuram Town
Panchayat under the scheme introduced by the Government. He
offered with a contract work to construct overhead drinking
water tank in the month of June 2008. The estimate amount
is Rs.4,60,000/-. He completed the work in October 2008. In
the same year December month, electricity connection was
made and started functioning. The first accused used to
visit the work site, took up the measurement in the M-Book.
She also used to visit frequently. From December 2008 till
February 2009, the complainant enquired the settlement of
the money due to him. On 07/02/2019, again he contacted A1.
At that time, she told him to come to the work site. Next
day, he went to the work place between 10.00 a.m and 11.00
a.m, where A1 and A2 were present. At that time, they
demanded Rs.25,000/- for completing the survey. On
10/02/2009, again he contacted A1. She asked him to come to
Pannaiyapuram Road. In that place, A2 also came. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
expressed his inability to give the money. Then, they
demanded 3% of the work namely Rs.12,000/- stating that out
of Rs.12,000/-, Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the higher
authorities, Rs.5,000/- to A1 and Rs.2,000/- to A2. She
asked him to come on the next day. But on 12/02/2009, he
lodged a complaint with the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Wing under Ex.P3.
6.Further event is spoken by PW14 namely Muthuraj,
who was working as Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Wing, Theni. He registered the case in Crime
No.1 of 2009 under section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. He submitted the original records to the
court and copies to the higher authorities. He asked PW3 to
come on the next day. On the next day, PW3 appeared before
him. Earlier to that, he made a request to the Government
Departments to depute two officials to assist him in the
trap process. On his request, two Government Officials were
present before him by namely Thangadurai and one Sankar. He
requested the witnesses Thangadurai to count the money
given by PW3. He counted the money and stated that it is
Rs.12,000/-. Mahazar was prepared wherein the note numbers
were recorded. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared. The
official witness was directed to dip his hands. There was
no change in colour. Later the phenolphthalein powder was
applied to the currency notes. The concerned police
official was directed to count the money, he counted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
money. Again two solutions were prepared, in which the the
concerned official was directed to dip his hands. It turned
pink. He instructed PW3 to have the money with him and give
to to the accused, if demand is made. He instructed the
official witnesses to accompany PW3 and witness the events.
It the money is received by the accused, PW3 was instructed
to give signal. For all the events. Mahazar was prepared in
which all the witnesses signed. After completing the
formalities, along with the police team, they went to the
office of the accused. As instructed earlier, PW3 and the
official witnesses instructed to go the office of the
accused.
7.Further event is spoken by PW3. When, he, along
with the official witnesses went to the office of the
accused, at that time, A1 was not available in the office.
Through phone, he contacted her. A1 told that they are
waiting near Kaleeswari Koil in the work area. So, along
with the witness Sankar, they went to that place and
contacted A1 about the bill. Near her, A3 was sitting. A1
asked whether he brought the photographs. She asked to give
the photographs and money to A3. A3 received the money and
put it on the dash board of the car. PW3 gave signal to the
police team as instructed earlier.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8.Further event is spoken by PW14. He would say
that PW3 narrated the event and identified the accused. He
contacted the Executive Engineer of the Pannaipuram
Panchayat to come to the place and to witness the
occurrence. Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared, in
which A3 was requested to dip his hands. It was repeated
for the other hand also. Sodium Carbonate solution turned
pink. Collected, labeled and sealed. On enquiry, A3 stated
that as per the instruction of A1, he received the money
and put the same in the dash board of the Car. He recovered
the money from the dash board of the Car and photographs.
He prepared mahazar for the entire events. They compared
the note number in money that of the number mentioned in
the mahazar prepared during pre-trap arrangements. It found
to be tallied. After sending advance intimation, they
searched the A1's house. But no seizure was made. He
submitted the records and material objects to the court.
The accused were remanded to judicial custody.
9.Further event is spoken by PW15 who was working
as Inspector of Police. He made request to the Court to
send the material objects for chemical examination,
recorded the statement of the witnesses. After receiving
the chemical analysis report and sanction order from the
competent authority, after completing the investigation, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sent a report to the Director of Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption.
10.The further event is spoken by PW17. He recorded
the statement of the official witnesses, after completing
the investigation filed final report.
11.PW4 Sankar is the official witness, who
accompanied PW3 corroborated PW5 with regard to pre-trap
and trap arrangements. As mentioned above, he requested to
witness the trap proceedings and further events. He
corroborated PW14 in material particulars. He signed in the
documents prepared at the time of trap.
12.PW6 has spoken about the maintenance of
attendance register.
13.PW7 has spoken the contract work assigned to
PW3.
14.PW13 is the Scientific Officer attached to FSL
Chennai.
15.PW16 was working as Manager in AIRCEL company.
As per the request made by the Investigating Officer, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
offered call details between 12/02/2009 and 13/02/2009.
With that, the prosecution side evidence was closed.
16.The accused were questioned under section 313(1)
(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code about the
incriminating circumstances against them. They denied the
evidence of the witnesses as false and stated that a false
case has been foisted. One witness was examined on the side
of the accused, but no document was marked.
17.At the conclusion of the trial process, the
trial court found A1 guilty, convicted and sentenced her to
undergo 2 years RI and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in
default to undergo 2 months SI for the offence under
section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced her
to undergo 2 years RI and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- in
default to undergo 2 moths SI for the offence under section
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
18.Against the judgment of conviction and sentence,
this criminal appeal is preferred by the A1 as appellant.
19.Heard both sides.
The back ground facts:-
20.PW3 Govindaraj is a contractor. He was inducted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
in the panel in 2006. In that year, he was assigned the
first work. In the course of time, he completed three
works. The present subject contract was assigned to him on
20/06/2008. As per the terms of contract, it must be
completed within a period of 60 days. But the work was
completed in the 10th month of 2008. Measurement work was
taken by PW8 on 27/11/2008. According to the de-facto
complainant, the work was commenced and operated on
03/12/2008. There was a delay in processing the bill. On
06/02/2009, he met PW7 and made a complaint stating that
bill is not prepared till that day. On 08/02/2009, A1 and
A2 made first demand of bribe. In the meantime, the
appellant Vanithai was under order of transfer. Another
person about to join in her post. But Vanithai did not
hand over the charge. But continued in the very same post
and discharging her official function. A report was
submitted by A1 to PW8 in this regard. Now as per the de-
facto complainant, the second demand was made on
10/02/2009. The complaint was lodged on 12/02/2009.
Thereafter, trap was laid on 13/02/2009. Later, on
16/02/2009 the entire amount due to him was paid through
bills. So, this is the sequence of events.
21.A2 and A3 were acquitted by the trial court. A1
who is appellant herein was alone convicted as mentioned
above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
22.With these dates and events in the background,
now let us go to the defence taken by A1.
23.The main defence is that PW3 Contractor was
inimical because of the delay in processing the bill.
24.It is the contention on the part of the
appellant that the work was not properly carried out by
PW3. So, she insisted PW3 to complete the work in a proper
manner. This caused PW3 enmity.
25.The next defence is that PW11 was placed in the
post of A1 on 04/12/2008. He was responsible for the
continuation of the supervisory work.
26.Another ground is that the bill was not prepared
for the expenditure incurred by PW3; There was a short of
Rs.36,000/-, it caused loss to PW3. This is also created
enmity with A1.
27.Yet another defence is that under the guise of
submitting the photographs for the completed work, PW3
stealthily put the money in a cover, handed over the same
to A3; A3 without knowing that the money is also kept in
the cover, received it at the instructions made by A1.
This is the trap laid for implicating her into the bribery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
charge; there was frequent threat by the officials to
blacklist PW3. This was also other reason for the false
trap.
28.In the light of the above said prosecution case and
the defence taken, we will go to the evidence available on
record.
29.The de-facto complainant, as stated above, stated
that on 07/02/2009 between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m, he met
A1 and A2 near Fathima School working site area. At that
time, A1 and A2 alleged to have demanded Rs.25,000/-.
30.In respect of the initial demand of Rs.25,000/- on
that date, except the oral evidence of PW3, no other
corroborative evidence is available. This allegation has to
be verified in the light of the subsequent event brought on
record by the prosecution.
31.Now the second demand is on 10/02/2009. At that
time, A1 was sitting in the Car and A2 came to that place.
When he expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, it
was reduced to Rs.12,000/- as advance and balance amount
later. The place of occurrence stated to be nearby Palayam
Bye-pass area. In this regard also, there is no
corroborative evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
32.The third demand alleged to have made is on the
date of trap namely 13/02/2009. On 12/02/2009, the
complaint was lodged.
33.Regarding the pre-trap event, no argument was
advanced by the appellant. In fact, the argument may not be
advanced by the appellant for the simple reason that in the
absence of accused only, the pre-trap arrangements were
made. Since the evidence of the de-facto complainant is
corroborated by the evidence of the shadow witness and the
Trap Laying Officer, I find that it was properly done as
per the procedure and rules. So we need not doubt it.
Now coming to the trap event.
34.PW3 would say that A3 was sitting near A1. PW3
asked A1 as to the preparation of bills and in-turn A1
enquired whether he has brought the photographs. A1 asked
him to hand over the photographs and money to A3. He handed
over the photographs and money to A3. A3 received the same,
put it on the dash board of the Car. This is also narrated
by PW4 shadow witness, during the course of cross
examination. PW4 was cross examined that when he contacted
A1 over phone for handing over the photographs, he was
asked by A1 to produce the photographs in the office; But
PW4 stated that since because, his wife is sick, he has to
go to the hospital urgently; So, she may receive the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
photographs in that place; When A1 was doing inspection
work, PW3 gave money and photographs to A3; At the time of
producing the photographs, PW3 stealthily put the money in
a cover and gave to A3. He put the money and photographs in
a separate cover and gave to A3.
35.The meaning of this cross examination is that PW3,
under the guise of handing over the photographs to A3,
stealthily covered the tainted money, gave to A3 knowing
fully well that A1 may not receive the money, if it is
known to her. So, according to the accused, it is nothing,
but the trap, which was pre-planned with ulterior motive to
wreck vengeance; She never instructed A3 to receive the
money on her behalf.
36.At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant/A1 would heavily rely upon the
cover theory. According to him, the cover theory was
introduced by the prosecution to cover up the handing over
of the photographs. If really, the tainted money was put
in the cover at that time of pre-trap arrangement, the
cover would also been subject to phenolphthalein test. But
this is completely absent. According to him, this is
nothing, but Drama, for the purpose of trapping the
innocent A1. So, he raises doubt with regard to the very
trap itself.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
37.For that purpose, he would draw the attention of
this court to the contradiction available in the evidence
of PW3 regarding the initial demand and subsequent demand
allegedly made by A1 and A2. This is the main and important
argument advanced by the appellant/A1.
38.Now let us go to the evidence of PW4 namely Sankar.
He would say that during pre-trap arrangement, the money
was not put in a cover. But PW3 put the money in his
pocket. The photographs are in the hands of PW3. PW3 has
not spoken about the cover issue. He has simply stated on
demand made by A1 took out the money from his shirt inner
pocket and photographs and tried to give it to A1. But A1
asked PW3 to hand over to A3.
39.Stopping a moment here, we will go to the recovery
event.
40.PW4 would say that the Trap Laying Officer asked A3
about the money. A3 took the money from the dash board.
The photographs were also handed over from the dash board.
No cover was spoken by PW4.
41.Now we will go to the evidence of the Trap Laying
Officer namely PW14.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
42.He has simply stated that on enquiry with A3 by
him, he handed over the money and photographs from the dash
board. During the cross examination, it was suggested to
him that the photographs and the money were put in a cover;
Under the guise of handing over the photographs, PW3
stealthily put the money in the cover to trap the accused;
Actually, A3 was deceived by PW3. It was denied by the Trap
Laying Officer.
43.Now we will go to the evidence of A3. He would say
that A1 after completing the investigation work, came to
the spot. At that time, two persons came to the place. A1
told him to receive two bags brought by those persons. As
per the instruction of A1, he received two covers from
that two persons. At that time, the Vigilance people came.
He has not spoken about the cover, but has spoken about
only the bag. But during 313(b)(1) Cr.P.C proceedings, he
has stated that as per the instructions given by A1, he
received the covers from PW3. So, a little bit of
confusion arises in his evidence as to whether the money
was put in a separate cover or in the same cover, which
contain the photographs.
44.Now we will go the mahazar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
45.In the mahazar also, nothing has been stated
regarding the covers. So, the question which arises for
consideration is whether the cover, spoken by PW3 creates
any doubt regarding the recovery. This will assume
importance only if the defence is able to establish that
the entire events are motivated to trap A1.
46.Now we will go to the motive suggested by the
accused.
47.As mentioned above, it is the defence taken by A1
that the work was not properly taken by PW3 and frequently,
A1 asked him to complete the work in a proper manner. The
second one is that Athiyappan namely PW11 was the Officer
who was responsible for the complete report; Absolutely,
there was no occasion for A1 namely the appellant herein to
demand any money from PW3. But this suggestion itself is
not properly established in view of the clear evidence
spoken by PW7 as mentioned above.
48.PW7 has stated that on 06/02/2009, PW3 contacted
him regarding the delay in the preparation of the bill.
But due to some incompletion of the work, he instructed PW3
to complete the work. PW3 undertook to complete the work in
a proper manner. Thereafter, he never turned up to him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
49.PW8 has stated that on 03/12/2008, electricity
service connection was made. Even after lapse of two
months, A1 did not submit the completion report, because of
the defects pointed out by her were not rectified. He
admits that the defects pointed out by him were never
rectified by PW3. PW3 never contacted him regarding the
completion report, thereafter PW7 and PW8 have stated that
the defects pointed out by A1 were never rectified by PW3.
50.As mentioned above, PW11 has stated that A1 did not
hand over the charge to him, even though he was posted in
charge on that date.
51.So from the evidence of PW7 and PW8, it is seen
that PW3 was making pressure upon the officials to prepare
the bill for the work. But there was a delay because of the
fault committed by PW3 in completing the work. So, this,
according to the appellant, was taken as a motive by PW3 to
lodge a complaint.
52.But may be that the completion work was not
properly undertaken by PW3, but the fact remains that A1
was responsible for submitting the completion report.
Before the defects are completed, there was no occasion for
A1 to submit the completion report.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
53.In the light of the above said development, there
is reason in the argument advanced by the appellant. The
failure completely lied upon PW3. He insisted the officials
to prepare the bill without properly rectifying the
defects. But after the trap was laid and case was
registered, the completion report was filed, based upon
which, amounts were settled as mentioned above.
54.So, how the completion report was submitted even
without rectifying the defects is not understandable. More
over, why PW3 has spoken about the cover for the first time
at the time of giving evidence is also not properly
explained by the prosecution.
55.As mentioned by the appellant, if money was put
inside the cover, whether it is a single cover or separate
cover, the cover itself ought to have been subjected to
Sodium Carbonate test. But, as mentioned above, the cover
was not recovered and it was not subjected to Sodium
Carbonate solution test. Why that important fact was
omitted to be taken note by the Trap Laying Officer is not
explained by him. In fact, as mentioned above, he has not
spoken about the cover issue at all. So, the possibility
of false accusation cannot be, completely ruled out.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
56.A2 who alleged to have made demand to PW3 was
acquitted. Which means that the trial court did not believe
the prosecution case against A2 regarding the demand,
automatically the initial demand alleged to have been made
by A1 also falls to the ground.
57.So, coming to the demand on the date of the trap,
in view of the inconsistent evidence let in by the
prosecution the demand and recovery also doubtful. These
doubts were not clarified by the prosecution in a proper
manner. So, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed
by the trial court is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, it is set aside.
58.In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed and
conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are
set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charges
levelled against her. Bail bond if any, executed by her
shall stand discharged. Fine amount if any paid by the her
shall be refunded to her.
31/01/2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
er
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To,
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate/
Special Judge, Theni.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Viginance and Anti-Corruption Wing,
Theni.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN,J
er
31/01/2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
