Madras High Court
R.Rajendran vs The Inspector Of Police on 15 May, 2025
CRL.A(MD).No.201 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 05.12.2024
Pronounced on : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A(MD)No.201 of 2018
R.Rajendran .. Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption,
Virudhunagar.
(Crime No.2 of 2009) .. Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 27 of P.C.Act
r/w Section 374of Cr.P.C. to call for the records and set aside the
conviction and sentence passed in Spl.C.C.No.42 of 2014, dated
06.04.2018 by the learned Special Judge for trial of Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases ,Chief Judicial Magistrate Virudhunagar District, at
Srivilliputhur.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
CRL.A(MD).No.201 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The Appellant, who is the sole accused in Special C.C.No.42 of
2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases, Chief Judicial Magistrate Virudhunagar District, at
Srivilliputhur, has filed this appeal challenging the conviction and
sentence imposed against him in Spl.C.C.No.42 of 2014, dated
06.04.2018, by the learned Special Judge for trial of Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases ,Chief Judicial Magistrate Virudhunagar District, at
Srivilliputhur.
2.P.W.2 is the resident of Tamil Padi village. He purchased a land
from one Ramaswamy Nadar on 02.03.2009. To change the patta in his
name on the basis of the said sale deed in respect of the Survey No. 338
of 2006 of the Tamil Padi Revenue Village, he approached the appellant
on 20.03.2009. When P.W.2 met the appellant on 25.3.2009 at 07.00
p.m., the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.300/- for transfer of the patta
and the appellant asked him to come with Rs.300/- on 26.03.2009 and
to meet at his office situated in Bose Complex, Thiruchuli. P.W.2 made a
complaint before the respondent Vigilance Department and P.W.11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
received the complaint from the defacto complainant/P.W.2 and
summoned the official witness/P.W.3 and another official witness and
prepared the entrustment Mahazar, after demonstration of the
phenolphthalein test to P.W.2 and the official witnesses with the money
brought by P.W.2. P.W.11 instructed P.W.2 to give the bribe amount to the
appellant if the appellant reiterated demand and P.W.3 was instructed to
keep an eye on the transaction taking place between P.W.2 and the
appellant. As per the instruction, P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the said Bose
Complex and reached the office of the appellant. P.W.3 was standing
outside the room, observing the transaction and P.W.2 entered into the
room of the appellant and the appellant reiterated demand and received
the bribe amount and assured to give the Patta transfer within a short
time. The same was witnessed by P.W.3 and P.W.2 gave the signal to
P.W.11. On receipt of the signal, P.W.11, and his team went into the room
of the appellant and conducted Sodium Corbonate test in the hands of the
appellant and the hand wash turned pink in colour and thereafter, P.W.11
enquired about the receipt of the bribe amount. The appellant stated that
he received the amount and disclosed the place of the amount which was
kept in the notebook. Thereafter, the amount was recovered and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
appellant was arrested and the documents were also recovered from the
office of appellant. Thereafter, the investigation was continued by P.W.13
and final report was filed against the appellant after obtaining sanction
report and examining number of witnesses and collecting the material
documents, before the learned Special Judge for trial of Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases ,Chief Judicial Magistrate Virudhunagar District, at
Srivilliputhur, and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.42 of 2014.
3.The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and after
his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C, and framed
necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not
guilty and he stood trial.
4.To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.16 and marked
M.O.1 to M.O.3. The learned trial judge thereafter, questioned the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the
incriminating materials available from the evidence of prosecution
witness and documents against him and he denied the same as false and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
gave explanation that he did not receive the amount. Then the case was
posted for examination of witnesses on the side of defence. The appellant
neither examined any witness nor marked any documents.
5.The learned trial judge, after perusing the entire records and also
considering the submission of the both the appellant and the prosecution
convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced the
appellant as follows:
Accused Conviction Punishment
for the
offence under
Section
Sole 7 of 3 years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
Accused Prevention of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo six
Corruption months simple imprisonment
Act, 1988
13(1)(d) r/w 3 years Rigorous imprisonment and a fine of
13(2) of PC Rs.20,000/-, in default, to undergo three
Act months simple imprisonment
Run concurrently and to pay fine of Rs.
40,000/- (totally)
6. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed this appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the appellant already made the recommendation before the date of
demand. The appellant is only a recommending authority and he is not
the issuing authority. The appellant made his recommendation much
earlier to the demand and the allegation that he made a demand is false
and there was no official relationship between the appellant and the
complainant after his recommendation. The case was foisted against him
due to motive. P.W.2 also did not submit any document to prove his sale
deed and other documents requiring for the transfer of patta. In the said
circumstances, the complaint was motivated since the appellant refused
to give the adangal and chitta copy before his purchase of the property
from the said Ramaswamy.
7.1.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that in the chief examination, the appellant has not supported
the case of the prosecution. He stated that he placed the amount of
Rs.300/- in the notebook of the appellant/VAO. In the said
circumstances, there was no clear evidence for demand and acceptance of
the bribe amount. Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
7.2.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the registration of the complaint itself is doubtful.
According to the counsel, P.W.2 visited the office at 10.30 a.m, according
to P.W.10. But in the cross-examination of P.W.2 revealed that he reached
the vigilance office only at 12.30 p.m. In the said circumstances, the
entire trap proceeding is shrouded with suspicion. According to the
appellant's counsel, if the appellant reached only at 12.30 p.m., then the
registration of FIR at 10.30 a.m., and the information to the official
witness P.W.3 at 10.00 p.m are all false. Therefore, he seeks for
acquittal.
7.3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the admitted case of P.W.2 is that P.W.3 did not enter into
the room of the VAO, namely appellant. Hence, his presence is doubtful,
and also he is not competent to speak about the reiteration of demand on
the date of the trap. Hence, his evidence is liable to be eschewed. He
further submitted that none of the documents were recovered from the
office. It shows that the document was in the custody of P.W.12. Hence,
the role of VAO, namely appellant, is very much limited, and his role is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
only to recommend the issuance of Patta and he has already completed
his work much earlier to the demand, and the same was forwarded to
P.W.12. In the said circumstances, the prosecution case is highly
doubtful.
7.4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that before registration of the FIR, P.W.3 was informed at
10.00 a.m. Therefore, the information received by P.W.11 at 10.30 a.m.,
is second information. Earlier information was suppressed by the
prosecution, which affected the foundation of the prosecution case.
According to the prosecution, P.W.11 gave the written requisition to the
office of P.W.3. The same was not marked, and hence, the said non-
marking of the material document clouds the arrival of P.W.3. The
learned counsel also submitted that there was a huge delay in registering
the FIR. The conduct of the trap proceedings also creates doubt over the
prosecution case. Apart from that, the learned counsel stated that the
questioning of accused under 313 of Cr.P.C., extracting the entire
evidence of the chief examination of each witness is not proper and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the question must be brief to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
enable the accused understand the incriminating circumstances available
against him. Hence, the framing questioning itself is not legally correct.
He further submitted that there was infirmity in framing the charge. In
the charge, it is stated that “jpUr;Rop jhYfh mYtyfj;jpy; ck;ik
re;jpj;jNghJ”. But, the occurrence took place in Bose complex where the
village administrative office was there. In the said circumstances, the
charge is misleading, which caused serious prejudice and miscarriage of
justice to the appellant and hence, after making the above submission, the
learned counsel pointed out the legal issue that when there was no
evidence to prove the demand, mere acceptance of the amount is not
sufficient to convict the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand,
submitted that variation of time always occurs in the Prevention of
Corruption Act cases since the witnesses are examined in Court after a
long time. Even though P.W.2 is declared as hostile, in the
re-examination, he affirmed the demand of the bribe by the appellant. He
approached the vigilance office and made a complaint about the demand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
of bribe amount and he admitted the entrustment of the amount of
Rs.300/- and also the request of patta from the village administrative
officer/appellant. Even the chief examination of P.W.2 has not been
challenged in the cross examination by the appellant. But, P.W.2
reiterated the demand during the re-examination of the appellant. Hence,
the demand was proved in accordance with the law. Apart from that, P.W.
3 also over heard and seen the reiteration of demand on the date of the
trap before handing over the amount. Merely because P.W.2 was declared
hostile in some aspect, it is not necessary to dispute the entire evidence
of P.W.2. In this case, more particularly, the appellant reiterated the
prosecution case in the course of further cross-examination. Hence, the
prosecution clearly proved the demand and acceptance.
8.1.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted
that there is a clear evidence about recording of the information at 10.30
a.m and also the said report reached the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, at 01.30 p.m., In the said circumstances, the deposition of
P.W.2 during the cross-examination of the accused that he reached the
office only at 12.30 p.m. is immaterial. He further submitted that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
motive projected by the appellant that before the purchase of the
property, the request of P.W.2 to give the adangal was declined by the
appellant is without any material. Hence, he seeks to confirm the
judgment given by the Court below. He also submitted that no prejudice
was caused due to the mistake committed in the charge. In the charge, it
is stated that “jpUr;Rop jhYfh mYtyfk;”, but the cross-examination of
P.W.2 and P.W.3 by the appellant, about the topography of the Bose
complex clearly shows that the accused understood the place and cross
examined ie., he handed over the money to the appellant at Bose
complex. Therefore, there was no misleading of charge and also there
was no miscarriage of justice. In all circumstances, he seeks for the
confirmation of the judgment passed by the trial Court.
9.This Court considered the rival submission made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and also precedents relied upon by them
and also perused the materials available on records.
10.Now, the question arising for consideration in this case is
whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, against the appellant is sustainable?
11.Discussion on the acceptance of the bribe amount :-
According to P.W.2, he placed the bribe amount on the table of the
appellant and he specifically deposed that he had not handed over the
bribe amount. Now, the further evidence of P.W.2 is that the official
witness, P.W.3 also did not accompany him inside the room of the
appellant. But, according to P.W.3 that he overheard the conversation and
saw the handing over of money by standing outside the room. This Court
perused the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer, P.W.11 and the evidence
of P.W.3. In the absence of clear topography picture of the occurrence
place, the case of P.W.3 that he had been standing in front of the room is
unacceptable. It is duty of the prosecution to prove the factum of receipt
of amount beyond reasonable doubt. When P.W.2 deposed that he placed
the money, on the table and P.W.3 had not accompanied PW.2 inside the
room of the appellant, there is a suspicion relating to the receipt of
amount by the appellant. Therefore, this Court finds that in view hostility
of P.W.2 and P.W.3 having not accompanied him, and stood outside the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
room of the appellant, the prosecution failed to prove the acceptance of
the amount. That apart, even at the time of recovery mahazar, the
appellant stated that he never received the amount. Mere change of the
colour in the back drop of above mysterious circumstances this Court can
not give significance to the colour change to presume the receipt of the
bribe amount.
12. Discussion on the demand:-
12.1. P.W.2 was declared hostile on the side of the prosecution.
According to the prosecution, P.W.2 purchased a property from one
Ramaswamy Nadar to an extent of 59 cents comprised in S.No.338/6 at
Tamilpadi Village, Thiruzhuli Taluk, Virudhunagar District. Thereafter,
he approached the appellant to transfer patta in his name on 20.03.2009.
Since P.W.2 is an illiterate villager, the appellant drafted the application,
processed the same and submitted his report to the zonal Tahsildar
immediately. The entire file was in the office of the zonal Tahsildar and
once it goes to the zonal Tahsildar the accused becomes functus officio.
As per the evidence of P.W.11, a guidelines have been issued by the
government regarding the duties and responsibilities of the village
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
administrative officer. As per the guidelines, in the case of illiterate
persons, the Village Administrative Officer can help to draft the petition
and process further. In this case, the same thing has happened. The
Village Administrative Officer/the appellant, received the application and
scribed the application on behalf of P.W.2 and obtained the signature and
processed the same and sent it to the higher officer for further steps. As
per the evidence of the department officials, namely, P.W.11 and the
others, the appellant is not the competent person to issue patta. He is only
a recommending authority.
12.2. In view of the above circumstances that the appellant already
submitted a report before the alleged date of demand on 25.03.2006, the
allegation of the prosecution that the accused demanded Rs.300/- to issue
the patta, which is not in his domain, creates doubt over the prosecution
case. It is a settled principle that mere recovery of amount is not a
circumstance to convict the appellant under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Corruption and Prevention Act. In the said circumstance, without any
strong evidence about the demand, this court, is unable to believe the
evidence of P.W.2, who was declared as hostile, on the basis of the stray
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
statement that appellant had demanded bribe on 25.03.2009 without any
corroborative materials to convict the appellant for the grave charge of
receipt of bribe amount. It is settled principle as per the Hon'ble Supreme
Court judgment in Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in
2017 8 SCC 136, that mere statement of demand without any further
proof or attending circumstances, conviction cannot be recorded. The
relevant paragraph of the above said judgment is as follows:-
“24. ..... the bald allegation of the
complainant with regard to the demand and payment
of Rs 3000 as well as the demand of Rs 2000 has
remained uncorroborated. Further to reiterate, his
statement to this effect lacks in material facts and
particulars and per se cannot form the foundation of
a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had
been made by the original accused. Viewed in this
perspective, the statement of the complainant and
the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation
that the original accused had enquired as to whether
money had been brought or not, can by no means
constitute demand as enjoined in law as an
ingredient of the offence levelled against the original
accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of
any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the
offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act.”
12.3. In this case, the appellant already recommended and the same
was received by the higher officer, who was competent to issue patta
much earlier to the demand and the said file was also not recovered from
the appellant. P.W.3 also has not accompanied P.W.2 and hence,
reiteration of demand without corroborative evidence of P.W.2 on the
date of trap raises a reasonable doubt. Hence, as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court Constitutional Bench reported in Neeraj Dutta
Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 4 SCC 731,
without proof of demand, in the backdrop of the hostility of the defacto
complainant, the conviction cannot be recorded. The trap is shrouded
with some mysterious circumstances.
13.According to P.W.2, he reached the vigilance office only at
12.30 p.m. on 26.03.2009. Thereafter, he gave a complaint to P.W.11.
P.W.11 registered the case at 1.30 p.m. Thereafter, he called the official
witness. But, before registration of the case, P.W.3 received the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
information on 26.03.2009 at 10 a.m and reached the Vigilance
Office on 11.00 a.m. Therefore, there are suspicious circumstances
relating to the time of receipt of the complaint and registration of the
case. Hence, the presence of P.W.3 before the arrival of the defacto
complainant and registration of the case is a strong circumstance to
accept the case of the appellant that the trap is shrouded with suspicious
circumstances and benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
14. As already observed by this court, the appellant forwarded his
recommendation on 20.04.2009 and the recommendation reached the
Taluk office on 24.03.2009 itself. Therefore, he has no role relating to the
issuance of patta and he also is not the competent person to issue Patta.
In view of the above circumstances, mere recovery of the tainted money
divorced from other circumstances, is not sufficient to record conviction.
P.W.2 admitted that he received patta from the Taluk office on the next
day of the trap. Therefore, the case of the appellant that he has no
authority to issue the patta and there was no necessity to demand bribe
amount of Rs.300/- is probable. The learned trial judge has not properly
considered the immediate statement furnished by the appellant during the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
preparation of the recovery mahazar and questioning under Section 313
Cr.P.C., which corroborated the evidence of the P.W.2 that the appellant
did not receive the bribe amount. In view of the above discussion, when
P.W.2 was declared hostile and P.W.3 also did not accompany him inside
room of the appellant, the case of the prosecution that the appellant
demanded and accepted the bribe amount to issue patta in favour of
P.W.2 cannot be accepted. More over, the appellant also has no authority
to issue patta. Therefore, this court is inclined to acquit the appellant.
15. P.W.2 has been treated hostile. The evidence of hostile witness
can be accepted only if some part of his evidence inspires confidence and
some corroborative material is available as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Constitution Bench in Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in 2017 8 SCC 136. But in this case, not only hostility of P.W.2,
the remaining evidence and circumstances are also not sufficient to
uphold the conviction of the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of
the Corruption and Prevention Act. The suspicion, however strong, is not
a circumstance to convict the appellant. Before drawing the presumption
under Section 20 of the Act, the prosecution must establish the
foundational facts of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. In this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
case, both are not proved. Hence, this court is inclined to acquit the
appellant.
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on the following terms:-
i) The judgment passed by the learned Special
Judge for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Chief Judicial Magistrate Virudhunagar District, at
Srivilliputhur, in Spl.C.C.No.42 of 2014, dated
06.04.2018, is set aside.
ii) The appellant is acquitted from all the
charges in Spl.C.C.No.42 of 2014, by judgment dated
06.04.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge for
trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Chief
Judicial Magistrate Virudhunagar District.
iii) Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be
refunded to the appellant forthwith.
iv) Bail bond executed by the appellant shall
stand cancelled.
15.05.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsg/dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
vsg/dss
To
1.The Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption,
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.
For Judgment made in
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 08:47:55 pm )
