Madras High Court
D.C.Ruskin vs State By on 14 March, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.O.P.No.4825 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.03.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.O.P.No.4825 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.3123 of 2025
D.C.Ruskin ... Petitioner
Vs.
State by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Special Investigation Cell,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Chennai. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
to set aside the order passed by the learned Special Court for trial of Cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai dated 12.02.2025 made in
Crl.M.P.No.758 of 2024 in C.C.No.33 of 2011.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthikeyan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar
Government Advocate
Page No.1 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
Crl.O.P.No.4825 of 2025
ORDER
The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.33 of 2021 on the file of Special
Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai filed a
petition to erase and eschew the evidence of P.W.3/Abineshbabu/defacto
complainant. The learned Special Judge by order dated 12.02.2025
dismissed the petition. Against which, the present petition is filed.
2.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner stands prosecuted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w.
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act [PC Act]. The case projected
against the petitioner is that when the petitioner was working as Inspector of
Police, CCB, Team-18, Chennai, P.W.3 was an accused in CCB Crime
Nos.341 of 2005 and 765 of 2008 for the offence under Sections 465, 467,
468 r/w. 471, 420 and 120B of IPC. On 16.12.2008, the petitioner is said to
have demanded a bribe amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as illegal gratification from
the defacto complainant for dropping further action and close the case
against the defacto complainant as civil in nature. On 17.12.2008, the
petitioner is said to have reiterated the demand and through Mohan/A2,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
Head Constable, received the trap amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. To prove this
charge, the prosecution examined P.W.3/decoy, P.W.4/Karthikeyan, who is
the accompanying official witness and Mr.Paramasami/Trap Laying Officer
(TLO) along with another official witness Mr.Haribhaskar. P.W.3/decoy
was examined-in-chief on 20.09.2011 and on the same day, a defer cross
petition under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.10572 of 2011 filed
stating that the decoy, accompanying witness and TLO speak to the identical
facts and if PW3 was cross examined without examining the accompanying
witness and TLO, great prejudice would be caused and the defence would
get exposed. Considering the same, the Trial Court allowed the petition on
20.09.2011 deferring the cross examination of P.W.3. On 28.08.2012, the
petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C. seeking for summoning
certain documents to prove his case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
Crl.M.P.Nos.1492 and 1493 of 2012 to recall the complainant whose cross
examination was earlier deferred and others. The Trial Court allowed the
same on 27.10.2015 on payment of batta to the witnesses. The prosecution
produced the witnesses except P.W.3 and later on 05.08.2016, the death
certificate of P.W.3 informing that he died on 30.07.2015. Hence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
petitioner lost the valuable right of cross examining P.W.3. The evidence is
complete only after chief examination and cross examination and the
evidence of witnesses are tested by touch tone of cross examination. In this
case, due to the death of P.W.3 he was unable to be cross examined. Hence,
the petitioner filed the present petition seeking to eschew the evidence of
P.W.3 recorded in chief.
3.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Dharmarajan and others vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police,
Ammapettai Police Station, Thanjavur District [ Crl.A.(MD).Nos.277 and
132 of 2017 dated 04.07.2019], wherein this Court held that after the chief
examination of P.W.2 therein was over and her cross examination was
deferred, it was the duty of the prosecution to secure the presence of P.W.2
before the Court for the purpose of cross examination. But since P.W.2
therein did not offer herself for cross examination, the testimony in chief
would not come in aid of the prosecution to sustain their case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the order
of this Court in the case of Dr.Sunder vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. By the
Inspector of Police, K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station, Law and Order,
Chennai [Crl.O.P.Nos.21519 & 21520 of 2017 dated 18.06.2019], wherein
this Court held that the evidence of a witness who could not be subjected to
cross examination due to his death or his non-availability, before he could
be cross examined, is admissible in evidence, though the evidentiary value
will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and a Court
cannot discard the evidence which was duly recorded in judicial
proceedings. Further, it held that the Trial Court must bear in mind the
nature of testimony, its probative value, the status of the witness, his
relationship or connection with the parties to the case, the likely animus
which may colour his statement and other factors touching upon the
credibility of the witness and the Trial Court can seek for corroboration
from the evidence of the other witnesses and these factors will take care of
the petitioner’s apprehension.
5.He further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
S.Yuvaraj vs. State rep. By the Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam
[Crl.O.P.No.7142 of 2013 dated 01.10.2013], wherein this Court finding
that the evidence of the accused was recorded in the absence of his
Advocate where the accused was facing capital charges, had eschewed the
evidence recorded. Hence, it is not germane to say that eshewing of
evidence is not permitted.
6.The respondent filed a counter stating that the prosecution so far
examined P.W.1 to P.W.8, marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and produced M.O.1 to
M.O.6. When the case is pending for cross examination of
P.W.8/Investigating Officer, at that stage, the petition is filed to eschew the
evidence of P.W.3. In this case, P.W.3 was examined-in-chief on
20.09.2011 and an opportunity was given to cross examine the witness.
Since a defer cross petition filed and was allowed, the cross examination
could not be done on the same day. In the meanwhile, a petition under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed in Crl.M.P.No.55 of 2011 to call for records from
CCB and summons was issued to P.W.3 for cross examination of A1.
Hence, P.W.3 was present before the Court on 28.08.2012 but the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
failed to cross examine him on that day, instead another petition under
Section 91 Cr.P.C. filed calling for some more documents. Hence, P.W.3
was sent back with an instruction to appear on receipt of summons. It is
only at the instance of the petitioner, the cross examination not conducted.
The petitioner was given an opportunity to cross examine P.W.3 on
20.09.2011 and 28.08.2012 but the petitioner for obvious reasons not cross
examined when opportunity was given and now taking advantage of the fact
that P.W.3 is no more, the present petition is filed after the lapse of more
than eight years. The probative value of evidence of P.W.3 can be decided
only at the time of judgment and there is no provision to eschew the
evidence already recorded. The evidence of P.W.3 cannot be eschewed by
citing Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act. Further, the prosecution relied
upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of
Punjab reported in (2015) 1 SCR 504, wherein the Apex Court had come
down heavily on the accused in Prevention of Corruption Act cases
adopting all dilatory tactics in cross examining the witnesses then and there
and later making attempts to win over the witness and to make them resile
from the earlier statement. This practice to be deprecated and directions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
issued to the Trial Courts to ensure cross examination of witnesses then and
there without any delay except under extraordinary circumstances.
7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) relied upon the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of S.Nirmala and others
vs. Shanthi Harikrishnan and others [O.S.A.No.187 of 2024 dated
17.10.2024], wherein this Court held that in the event of non-availability of
the witnesses, their evidence cannot get automatically eschewed and the
admissibility and probative value of the evidence can be decided at the
appropriate stage in the final evaluation of the case.
8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,
it is seen that the admitted fact of this case is that the petitioner, who is the
Inspector of Police attached to CCB, Chennai along with Head Constable
Mohan was charged and facing trial in C.C.No.33 of 2011. P.W.3 is the
decoy, on his complaint a trap was laid and in the presence of P.W.4, the
trap amount was demanded and received by the accused. The
TLO/Mr.Paramasami laid the trap and it was proved successful. Thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
the accused was arrested in the case and on conclusion of investigation,
charge sheet filed. In this case, P.W.3/decoy was examined-in-chief on
20.09.2011, thereafter a defer cross petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.10572
of 2011 and the Trial Court permitted deferring the cross examination of
P.W.3 on 20.09.2011, since P.W.3, P.W.4 and the TLO speak to identical
facts. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 91 Cr.P.C.,
seeking for some records which again lead to some delay. The petitioner
filed petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.1492 and 1493 of 2015 to recall the
complainant and other witness and the same was ordered on 27.10.2015. In
this case, P.W.4/accompanying witness was examined-in-chief on
03.05.2013 and thereafter cross examined on six occasions starting from
15.11.2016 to 25.05.2017 almost for six months and thereafter, the TLO was
also cross examined. The prosecution went to serve summons to P.W.3 and
it came to know that P.W.3 died on 30.07.2015 and produced the death
certificate on 05.08.2016. The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition
in Crl.M.P.No.758 of 2024 seeking to eschew the evidence of P.W.3 for the
reason that he is not at fault for not cross examining P.W.3. Further, his
submission is that the decision referred by the prosecution in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
Vinod Kumar, wherein the order was delivered on 21.01.2015 and the
petitioner was permitted to defer the cross examination as early as on
20.09.2011, hence it may not be applicable, likewise the Division Bench
judgment cited by the prosecution pertains to the civil suit. The rights of the
accused in the criminal case cannot be denied when there is a specific
provision under Section 243(2) Cr.P.C. permits deferring cross examination.
His further contention seems to be that the evidence of P.W.3 is untested by
the corner stone of cross examination and if chief examination alone taken
for consideration, great prejudice would be caused to him.
9.The Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Apex
Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi)
reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 answered whether in the absence of evidence
of complainant/direct or primary evidence of demand of illegal gratification,
is it not permissible to draw intferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a
public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act based on other evidence adduced by the
prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
The Constitutional Bench formulated a question in the absence of the
complainant letting in direct evidence of demand owing to the non-
availability of the complainant or owing to his death or other reason,
whether the demand for illegal gratification could be established by other
evidence.
This is because in the absence of proof of demand, a legal
presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(for short “the Act”) would not arise.
Thus, the proof of demand is a sine qua non for an offence to be
established under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and dehors the
proof of demand the offence under the two sections cannot be brought
home.
Thus, mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal
gratification or recovery thereof in the absence of proof of demand would
not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act.
Hence, the pertinent question is, as to how demand could be proved in
the absence of any direct evidence being let in by the complainant owing to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
the complainant not supporting the complaint or turning “hostile” or the
complainant not being available on account of his death or for any other
reason.
Further, the Apex Court after referring to various decisions
summarised as follows:
68.What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is
summarised as under:
(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the
prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the
guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal
gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter
of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or
documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also
be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of
direct oral and documentary evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in
mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-
giver without there being any demand from the public
servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and
receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of
acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case,
there need not be a prior demand by the public
servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a
demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and
tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is
received by the public servant, it is a case of
obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior
demand for illegal gratification emanates from the
public servant. This is an offence under Sections
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by
the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant
respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as
a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or
receipt of an illegal gratification without anything
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to
bring home the offence, there must be an offer which
emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by
the public servant which would make it an offence.
Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when
accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a
payment made which is received by the public
servant, would be an offence of obtainment under
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand
and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification
may be made by a court of law by way of an inference
only when the foundational facts have been proved by
relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the
absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record,
the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of
fact while considering whether the fact of demand has
been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a
presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused
and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
(f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has
died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting
in the evidence of any other witness who can again let
in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence
or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial
evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in
an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the
proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the
court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification
was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned
in the said Section. The said presumption has to be
raised by the court as a legal presumption or a
presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is
also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to
Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under
Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of
fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the
former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is
discretionary in nature.
69.In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions,
we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench
decisions of this Court in B.Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of
A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
and P.Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana
Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC
(Cri) 11] with the three-Judge Bench decision in M.
Narsinga Rao [M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1
SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258], with regard to the nature
and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the
offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act,
when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary
evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his
death or any other reason. The position of law when a
complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also
discussed and the observations made above would
accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence
Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is
no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three
cases.
70.Accordingly, the question referred for consideration
of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:
In the absence of evidence of
the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence)
it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of
culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based
on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
10.Thus, from the above judgment it is clear that the non-availability
of primary evidence of the complainant owing to his death or any other
reason would encompass the cases where the defer cross petition is allowed,
the Apex Court had held as to how his evidence to be considered. Hence
death of a witness whose evidence recorded in chief, cross examination
deferred and subsequently not available, his evidence cannot be eschewed
or erased in toto.
11.In view of the above, this Court finds, impugned order does not
suffer any infirmity. Hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed.
The Trial Court has to keep in mind the guidelines given by the
Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in this regard.
12.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.03.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order,
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
Note: Issue order copy on 17.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Special Investigation Cell,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,
Chennai.
2.The Special Judge,
Special Court for trial of Cases under
the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
14.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 06:51:42 pm )
