Madras High Court
M.Jeyaraj vs The State Rep By on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.364 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 10.01.2025
Pronounced On : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.364 of 2018
M.Jeyaraj ... Appellant
Vs.
The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.3 of 2013) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment dated
27.07.2018 made in Special Case No.23 of 2013 on the file of the
learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai.
For appellant : Mr.R.Gandhi Senior Counsel for
Mr.M.Muthuvel
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.364 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in Special Case No.23 of 2013 on the file
of the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment
dated 27.07.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge for the
Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. By the said
judgment, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the
offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo two years
simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and to undergo two
years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to
undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under
Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
2.P.W.2 and P.W.4 were working in a firm called Anitha
Kitchen and Metal Company situated at Thiruparankundram,
Madurai. P.W.2's cell phone was received by P.W.4 and he sold
the same in a shop called Viram Communication Cell phone. He
gave a complaint to the accused officer, who was the Special Sub
Inspector of Police, attached with Subramaniyapuram Police
Station, Madurai. P.W.2 gave the complaint on 30.03.2011 and the
accused officer demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- to return the phone.
Thereafter, on 25.04.2011, the appellant again made a demand of
Rs.1,500/- over phone and reiterated the said demand on
26.04.2011. Therefore, P.W.2 gave a complaint to P.W.11 attached
with the respondent Vigilance Department. P.W.11 after receipt of
the complaint from P.W.2, registered the case in Crime No.3 of
2013, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, he called two official
witnesses namely, P.W.3 and one Sakthivel Seenivasan from the
Government Aavin Milk Production Unit. In the presence of P.W.3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
and the other official witnesses, he demonstrated the significance
of the Phenolphthalein test with the money brought by P.W.2.
After that he instructed P.W.2 to hand over the money, if the
accused officer reiterated the demand. P.W.3 was also instructed
to accompany P.W.2 and instructed to observe the transaction
taking place between P.W.2 and the accused officer. PW2 and PW3
went to the accused officer's police station at about 07.00 pm., and
enquired with the Sentry of the said police station about the
appellant and he informed that the accused officer would come to
the police station usually around 10.00 am. Subsequently, P.W.2
and P.W.3 approached the accused officer and the accused officer
reiterated the demand and received the amount and kept the same
in his pant pocket. The same was witnessed by P.W.3, P.W.2 gave
the signal and P.W.11 and his team entered into the police station
and on seeing P.W.11 and other officers, the accused officer threw
away the alleged bribe amount received from P.W.2 into the
premises of adjacent saw mill, namely, Jawaharlal timber shop.
Thereafter, P.W.11 conducted the test in the hands of accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
officer and the said wash turned into pink in colour and when he
questioned the accused officer, the accused officer disclosed the
fact that he received the amount and thrown the bribe amount into
the premises of adjacent Jawaharlal Timber shed. Then, the said
saw mill was opened in the presence of the watchman of the said
mill and the Station House Officer and the notes were picked up
by the other official witness Sakthivel seenivasan. Thereafter, P.W.
11 arrested the accused and completed the preparation of the
recovery mahazar. Then P.W.11 remanded the accused officer.
Thereafter, the case file was entrusted to P.W.12 for investigation.
P.W.12 continued the investigation and then P.W.13 completed the
investigation and filed the final report before the Special Court for
the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai and the same
was taken on file in S.C.No.23 of 2013.
3. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were
furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned trial
Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the
accused/appellant framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same were
read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the
accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and
stood trial.
4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined
13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and exhibited 20 documents as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and marked four material objects as M.O.1 to
M.O.4.
5.The learned Trial Judge after completion of the
examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellant
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials
available against him in the prosecution evidence and the
appellant denied them as false. In the said circumstances, the
learned trial judge, after considering the entire evidence, convicted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
the appellant without accepting the explanation, of the appellant
and punished the appellant, by passing the impugned order as
stated above. Challenging the same, he filed the present appeal
before this court.
6. Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant made the following submissions:
6.1.To convict the accused officer under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 it is imperative
on the part of the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance
of the bribe amount beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the
demand has not been proved.
6.2.According to P.W.2, he approached the accused officer
on 28.03.2011 and the accused officer demanded bribe amount
from him. Thereafter, the accused officer again demanded bribe on
30.03.2011 and also reiterated the said demand through telephone
on 25.04.2011 and 26.04.2011. In the complaint, it is stated that the
initial demand was made on 28.03.2011. But, in the evidence, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
stated that the demand was made on 30.03.2011. Therefore, on the
score of the said material contradiction, the evidence of P.W.2 is
liable to be rejected. According to P.W.2, and the complaint, the
accused officer demanded the amount in the afternoon of
25.04.2011. The learned Senior Counsel emphasized the word
“kjpak;” but, in the call detail record collected for both mobiles of
the accused officer and P.W.2 there is a reference about the call at
06.12 hours. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel would submit
that the demand through the phone on 30.03.2011 is not proved.
Similarly, the learned Senior counsel would submit that as per the
prosecution the demand was made through the phone on
26.04.2011. The accused officer even on 25.04.2011 through the
phone asked him to come and meet at 10.00 am with the bribe
amount. Therefore, he made a call to the accused officer on
26.04.2011 at 09.52 am. Then, he made the complaint. The said
discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.2 and corresponding
entry in the CDR report clearly proved that the alleged demand is
not proved. The learned Senior counsel would submit that P.W.2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
has many bad antecedents. Therefore, his evidence requires close
scrutiny and considering the said discrepancies and the
antecedents of P.W.2, the demand is not proved. Therefore, he
seeks acquittal.
6.3.Both P.W.2 and P.W.4 have a list of theft cases to their
credit. Hence, their evidence is not trustworthy. The same was
admitted by both the police officers and P.W.2 and P.W.4
themselves. Therefore, their evidence is liable to be rejected.
6.4.The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the
recovery was made from Jawaharlal Timber shop. According to
P.W.2, the amount was received by the appellant and he counted it
and then put the same is his pant pocket. According to the
prosecution, on seeing P.W.11, he threw the money into
Jawaharlal Timber Shop and the same was picked up by witness
Sakthivel Seenivasan, but he was not examined. Therefore, the
recovery was not supported by the corroborative evidence of
Sakthivel Seenivasan.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
6.5.The learned Senior counsel also submitted that no person
was examined to prove the recovery from the police station. P.W.
10/Inspector of Police attached with the said station was
examined to prove the recovery. His evidence is not consistence
with the evidence of P.W.3 and many inconsistencies are there
between the evidence of P.W.11, P.W.10 and P.W.3. Therefore, the
recovery was not proved in accordance with law.
6.6.The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the
place of the recovery was not clearly proved and there is a doubt
over the place of the recovery of the money.
6.7.The learned Senior counsel would further submit that the
rough sketch and the observation mahazar was not prepared to
demonstrate the place of the occurrence which is material in this
case in view of the recovery of the amount from some other place.
6.8.The learned Senior counsel finally submitted that the
sanctioning authority has not accorded sanction with due
application of mind. In the sanctioning order and in the evidence,
he stated that the accused officer was working as a Special Sub-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
Inspector from 01.08.2002 to 26.04.2011. Whereas, he was
promoted as a Special Sub-Inspector only on 30.08.2010. The said
fact clearly demonstrated that he accorded sanction without
application of mind. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel seeks
acquittal.
7.Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
7.1.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit
that the difference of time between the evidence and record is not
a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. The criminal back
ground is not a ground to disbelieve the proved facts. Evidence
was adduced before the Court below to prove the demand and
acceptance by the appellant. P.W.2's evidence is cogent and the
same is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3. Both the witnesses
have clearly deposed about the receipt of the bribe amount by the
appellant. The conduct of the appellant throwing the amount into
the premises of saw mill situated adjacent to the police station is a
material circumstance to presume the receipt of the bribe amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
7.2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further
submit that the minor contradictions and the immaterial
discrepancies relating to the time of the occurrence stated in the
complaint and evidence is not a ground to disbelieve the entire
prosecution case when the available material clinchingly proved
the demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant.
7.3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted
that due to the examination of witnesses after number of years,
these type of discrepancies relating to the time tend to occur and
hence, he relied the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 (2) SCC
88 and seeks to believe the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.3 is
an independent official witness and he has no motive to implicate
the appellant in this case and he clearly deposed about the receipt
of the bribe amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
7.4.Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would
submit that the reason stated by the appellant that the sanctioning
authority has not applied his mind to accord sanction is not
material. The discrepancies pointed out by the learned Senior
counsel to render a finding that the sanctioning authority accorded
sanction without application of mind is not acceptable. In view of
the above submission, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials available on record and the precedents
relied upon by them.
9.P.W.2 and P.W.4 were working in a firm, namely, Anitha
Kitchen and Metal Company situated at Thiruparankundram,
Madurai. P.W.2's cell phone was received by P.W.4 and he sold
the same in a shop called Viram Communication Cell phone.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
Therefore, he gave a complaint to the accused officer. The accused
officer was the Special Sub Inspector of Police, attached with
Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai. P.W.2 gave the
complaint on 30.03.2011 and the accused officer demanded a sum
of Rs.1,500/- to return the phone. Thereafter, on 25.04.2011, the
appellant made a demand of Rs.1,500/- through phone and
reiterated the said demand on 26.04.2011. Therefore, P.W.2 gave
the complaint to P.W.11 attached with the respondent Vigilance
Department. P.W.11 after receipt of the complaint from P.W.2,
registered the case in Crime No.3 of 2013, for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Thereafter, P.W.11 called the official witnesses P.W.3 and
one Sakthivel Seenivasan from the Aavin Milk Production Unit. In
the presence of P.W.3 and other official witness, P.W.11
demonstrated the significance of the Phenolphthalein test with the
money brought by P.W.2. After that P.W.11 instructed P.W.2 to
hand over the money, if the accused officer reiterated the demand.
P.W.3 also was instructed to accompany P.W.2 and observe the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
transaction between P.W.2 and the accused officer. The entire
team visited the accused officer's police station at about 07.00 pm.,
and PW2 and PW3 enquired with the Sentry of the said police
station about the appellant and he informed that the accused
officer would usually come to the police station around 10.00 am.
Subsequently, P.W.2 and P.W.3 approached the accused officer
and the accused officer reiterated the demand and received the
amount and kept the same in his pant pocket. The same was
witnessed by P.W.3, P.W.2 gave the signal and P.W.11 and his
team entered into the police station and on seeing P.W.11 and
other officers, the accused officer threw away the alleged bribe
amount received from P.W.2 into the premises of adjacent saw
mill, namely, Jawaharlal timber shop. Thereafter, P.W.11
conducted the test in the hands of accused officer and the said
wash turned into pink in colour and he questioned the accused
officer and the accused officer disclosed the fact that he threw the
bribe amount into the adjacent premises of Jawaharlal Timber saw
mill. Thereafter, the said saw mill was opened in the presence of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
the watchman of the said mill and the Station House Officer and
the money was picked up by the other official witness Sakthivel
seenivasan. Thereafter, P.W.11 arrested the accused and
completed the preparation of the recovery mahazar. Further, P.W.
11 remanded the accused officer.
10.The learned Senior counsel made much emphasis to the
discrepancies of time between the evidence of P.W.2 and the
documents. In the CDR report, it is specifically stated that at 06.12
hours, there was a call between the accused officer and P.W.2.
Similarly on 26.04.2011 also there was some call between the
accused officer and P.W.2. The said document corroborated with
the evidence. Merely because there are some discrepancies relating
to the time it is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2.
P.W.2 clearly deposed about the recovery of cell phone from the
shop owner on his disclosure. There was no cross examination on
this aspect. The cell phone was under the custody of the accused
officer. He has not returned the same. Therefore, the demand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
made by the accused officer on 28.03.2011 is probable one. Apart
from that the Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar
Garg v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020 (2) SCC 88 has held
that in view of the examination of witness after number of years,
usual discrepancies relating to the immaterial particulars are
common and this is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the
complainant and the official witnesses and the relevant paragraph
is as follows:-
“14. Given the time gap of five to six years, minor
contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are
natural. The witnesses are not required to recollect and
narrate the entire version with photographic memory
notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Picayune
variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main
and core incriminatory evidence of the demand of bribe,
reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking of
the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the
offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, that as noticed
above and hereinafter, have been proved and established
beyond reasonable doubt. Documents prepared
contemporaneously noticed above affirm the primary and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
ocular evidence. We, therefore, find no good ground and
reason to upset and set aside the findings recorded by the
trial court that have been upheld by the High Court.”
11.Further, the discrepancies relating to the date of oral
demand is not material when the accused had the custody of the
cell phone of P.W.2. Therefore, no material contradiction goes to
the root of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and hence, the
demand was clearly proved in accordance with law.
12.The learned Senior counsel argued that the evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.4 requires close scrutiny as they have previous bad
antecedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Shashidhar
Purandhar Hegde v. State of Karnataka reported in 2004 12 SCC
492 has held as follows:-
“13. .... Merely because some of the witnesses are involved in
criminal cases, that may at the most warrant a close scrutiny of
their evidence but not total rejection.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
13. This Court considered both the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.4. Even though they have some previous bad antecedents,
P.W.2 clearly deposed about the demand and acceptance. P.W.4
deposed that P.W.2 borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000/- from him and
failed to repay the said amount and hence, he received the cell
phone (MO.2) of P.W.2 from him and sold to one Vairaprakash for
Rs.850/- and adjusted the said amount and P.W.5 recovered the
said cell phone and handed over to the appellant. The appellant
demanded bribe to give the cell said phone to P.W.2. The said
evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and natural. Apart form that, P.W.3,
independent official witness has no motive against the appellant.
He deposed about the demand and acceptance of the bribe
amount. Therefore, on close, careful scrutiny of the evidence of
P.W.2, this Court finds except the fact of the previous case nothing
was elicited as to whether the appellant was either the
Investigating Officer or witness in the said previous case and to
disbelieve his testimony about the demand and acceptance of the
bribe amount to return his cell phone. In addition to that, presence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
of the previous case is positive circumstance to intimidate P.W.2
so to speak. Therefore, antecedents of the witnesses is not a
ground to disbelieve their evidence relating to the demand and
acceptance of the bribe amount. Therefore, the submission of the
learned counsel to disbelieve their evidence cannot be accepted.
14.The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the
recovery has not been proved by examining the other official
witness. This Court is not inclined to accept the said submission
on the ground that the evidence of available witnesses are cogent
and trustworthy to prove the recovery. P.W.3 clearly deposed
about the recovery and P.W.11 also clearly deposed about the
recovery and apart from that the Station House Officer of the
particular station, namely, P.W.10 also supported the recovery.
The recovery was made on the disclosure of the appellant. In view
of the said circumstances, the case of the appellant that the
recovery was not proved in accordance with law cannot be
accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
15.The learned Senior counsel submitted that no rough
sketch and the observation mahazar were prepared and this will
affect the prosecution case. This Court considered that there was
no dispute over the presence of P.W.3 and no material
circumstances were brought to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3. In
view of this non preparation of the sketch and observation
mahazar is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution,
more particularly, when the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are
cogent relating to the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount.
16.The learned Senior counsel also submitted that the
sanctioning authority has not applied his mind and this is not
correct. The sanctioning authority considered the entire materials
submitted by the investigating agency and accorded sanction. In
the Sanction Order Ex.P.1, P.W.1 stated that the accused was
working as Special Sub-Inspector of Police from 01.08.2002 to
26.04.2011. But, he was promoted as Special Sub Inspector of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
Police on 30.08.2010 and therefore, according to the learned senior
counsel that there was non-application of mind in according
sanction. This Court is unable to accept the same. This Court
perused the sanction order and in the sanction order there was
clear narration of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount and
recovery of bribe amount. On the date of trap, he worked as
Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the said C-2 Subramaniyapuram
Police Station and in conclusion paragraph, it is stated that
“Whereas, I Sanjay Mathur, IPS, Commissioner of Police, Madurai
City, Madurai, being the authority competent to remove the said Thiru.
M.Jeyaraj, formerly Special Sub-Inspector of Police, C-2,
Subramaniyapuram Police Station, Madurai City from service, after
carefully and fully examining the materials as well as copy of FIR,
Statements of witnesses and Thiru.M.Jeyaraj, along with the other
records and also the report of the Director, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, Chennai, placed before me in regard t the allegation and in
circumstances of the case, am satisfied that the above said official should
be prosecuted for the above said offences before the Court of law“.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
17. He also gave evidence before the Court in the following
terms:-
me;j fojj;Jld; nkw;go Fw;w tHf;fpd; Kjy;
jfty; mwpf;if> rhl;rpfspd; thf;FK:yk;> vjphpapd;
thf;FK:yk; kw;Wk; ,ju Mtzq;fs; ,izj;J
mDg;ggl;oUe;jJ. Ehd; me;j Mtzq;fis
ftdkhf ghprPyid bra;njd;. mjd; K:yk; vjphp kPJ
Fw;w eltof;ifj; bjhlu nghjpa Kfhe;jpuk; ,Ug;gij
czh;e;njd;. vdnt> ehd; 24.05.2012 njjp vjphp
b$auh$; kPJ Fw;w eltof;if nkw;bfhs;s C.j.r
gphpt[ 19(1) (rp) d; fPH; ,izthiz tHq;fpndd;.
vjphp kPJ C.j.r gphpt[ 7 kw;Wk; 13(1)(o) c/,
13(2)d; fPH; Fw;weltof;if bjhlu ,irthiz
tHq;fpndd;.
18. Therefore, this Court finds P.W.1 accorded sanction upon
perusal of the material furnished by the Investigating Agency and
came to the subjective satisfaction based on the materials. Further,
neither miscarriage of justice nor prejudice caused to the appellant
had been established.
19. It is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the said
witness. This Court finds no merits in the case and this criminal
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
20. The appellant is aged about 63 years and suffering from
various illness and hence, this Court reduces the sentence of
imprisonment from two years to one year.
21.Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with the
following terms:
(i)conviction recorded by the Special Court for Prevention of
Corruption Act, Cases, Madurai, dated 27.07.2018 in S.C.No.23 of
2018, for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby confirmed.
(iii) Accordingly, the sentence of two years Simple
Imprisonment passed by the Court below for the offence under
Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby reduced
to one year of simple imprisonment.
(iv) The sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment passed
by the Court below for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also hereby
reduced to one year of simple imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
(v) The period of sentence already undergone by the
accused/appellant shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., as
against the substantive sentence.
(vi) The learned trial Judge is hereby directed to take steps to
secure the appellant and confine him in prison to serve his
remaining period of imprisonment.
22.List this case on 27.06.2025 under the caption for
“reporting compliance”.
15.05.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
To
1.The Special Court for Trial of
Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Madurai.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
