Madras High Court
Tr.M.Ramiah vs State Represented By on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 02.12.2024
Pronounced on : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018
Tr.M.Ramiah ... Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Madurai.
(Crime No.03 of 2005) ... Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the trial
Court and set aside the conviction and sentence passed in
Spl.Case.No.54 of 2011 dated 15.10.2018, on the file of the Special
Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai.
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018
For appellant : Mr.B.Sarvanan Senior Counsel
for Mr.A.Arivuchandran
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in Special Case No.54 of 2011 on the file of
the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act
Cases, Madurai, filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated
15.10.2018 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
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 three months
simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. P.W.2 is the owner of the property situated in the village,
namely, ChinnaKoravanpatti. During the UDR program, the
entries of his ancestral land was wrongly entered in the name of
the P.W.5. Therefore, he made application to the Tashildar office to
rectify the mistake and give the patta in respect of the survey
number which was wrongly entered in the name of P.W.5. The
Tashildar received the application and forwarded the same to the
Deputy Tashildar and the village administrative officer, namely,
the appellant. P.W.2 and his brother approached the appellant to
send the report to the Tashildar office and he demanded a sum of
Rs.2,000/- as bribe. On 10.03.2005 he reiterated the said demand
and asked to give it on 11.03.2005 at 4.00 pm. Thereafter, not
willing to pay the amount, he approached the respondent
vigilance office and he approached the officer P.W.17. P.W.17 after
receipt of the complaint from P.W.2, registered the case in crime
number and asked P.W 3 and P.W.14 official witnesses and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and smeared the
phenolphthalein powder over the amount brought by P.W.2.
Thereafter, the Trap Laying officer prepared the entrustment
mahazar and also asked P.W.3 to go along with P.W.2 and watch
the proceedings taking place between P.W.3 and the accused
officer. P.W.2 went to the office of the appellant and he was not
present and hence, he went to another village and there also he
was not available and finally he was found in ChinnaKoravanpatti
village. The appellant emerged out of the Manikandan Tea Shop,
in the said village and reiterated the demand and received the
amount from P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.3 and thereafter P.W.2
gave the signal and phenolpthalein test was conducted in the
hands of the appellant and on seeing the colour change the
amount was recovered after following the procedure. After
recovery, the appellant was arrested and produced before the
Court along with the recovery mahazar with the recovered
amount and other documents. Thereafter, the investigating officer
conducted investigation and examined number of witnesses and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
also obtained the sanction and filed the final report before the
special Court for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Madurai, and
the same was taken on file in special.Case.No.54 of 2011.
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 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 for trial.
4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined
17 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and exhibited 25 documents as
Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and marked five material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.
5. On the side of the appellant no witness was examined, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
exhibited one document as Ex.D1.
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 and gave an explanation that after
the receipt of application, the villagers themselves convened
compromise meeting and as per the compromise, P.W.5 agreed to
give back the land wrongly entered in his name and also agreed to
measure the properties, and P.W.2 should bear the entire
expenditure. For that purpose Rs.2,000/- was agreed to be
entrusted with the Village Administrative Officer, namely the
accused officer. He received the amount and was asked to
measure the properties and he did not receive the amount as
illegal gratification. But,w no witnes was examined. One
document Ex.D1 was marked on the side of the appellant. In the
said circumstances, learned trial judge, after considering the entire
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
evidence, convicted the appellant without accepting the
explanation, by passing the impugned order as stated above.
Challenging the same, he filed the present appeal before this court.
6. The learned senior counsel Thiru B.Saravanan would
submit that the demand was not proved as per law. P.W.2 in chief
examination has stated that he demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. But
the entire reading of the evidence in chief would show that the
amount was entrusted with the Village Administrative Officer to
meet out the expenditure of measuring the properties. Therefore,
is a probable explanation was given by the appellant when the
specific case of P.W.2 was that the amount was entrusted with the
accused officer only as expenditure to measure the land. The said
evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the independent witness,
namely, P.W 5/Chellappa. He specifically deposed before the
Court that there was a compromise between P.W 5 and P.W 2 in
the presence of the elders of the village and all advised to measure
the property and P.W.2 should bear the cost. The said amount was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
also directed to be entrusted with the Village Administrative
Officer and if more amount is incurred, the same should be borne
by P.W.2. In the said circumstances, P.W.2's evidence is
corroborated by P.W.5 and hence, even though acceptance was
proved, the amount was not illegal gratification. It was only for
the purpose of meeting out the expenses for measuring the
property, for which, there is a possible explanation corroborated
by the evidence of P.W.5. Hence, the necessary ingredients of
either Sections 7 or 13 are not present in this case and hence, he
seeks for acquittal.
6.1.The Learned Senior counsel further submitted that there
is no clear evidence relating to making over the application of
P.W.2 to the Village Administrative Officer. According to the
prosecution, the file was taken from the village administrative
officer, but P.W 5 Tahsildar was examined as a prosecution
witness and he specifically deposed that P.W.2, surreptitiously
took the application from the file and entrusted with the village
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
administrative officer, for which, he initiated proceedings under
Ex.D1.
6.2.Therefore, learned Senior counsel submitted the
prosecution case that the file was taken from the village
administrative officer is doubtful and hence, he seeks for acquittal.
Learned senior counsel further submitted that the charge
specifically states that P.W.2 made application to the Tahsildar,
P.W.5 and the same was made over to the village administrative
officer through the proper channel. The word “cupa gjpTfSld;
gjpTfSf;Fg; gpd;”, in the charge itself shows that there was
proper entry in the document of jurisdictional Tahsildar's office. In
this case, there was no charge and the said document was not
produced by the prosecution. Further, the relevant officer was also
not examined. In the said circumstances, there is serious doubt
over the entire trap proceedings. More particularly, P.W.5's
evidence is contrary.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
7.The learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that
P.W 2, P.W 2 in chief examination stated that he demanded
money, but during the cross examination of the appellant, he
submitted that there is no demand. He entrusted the amount only
for the purpose of meeting out the expenses for taking
measurement. But tin further cross examination of the
prosecution, he re-affirmed the statement made in the chief
examination that the appellant demanded bribe amount. In the
said circumstances, the entire reading of the evidence of P.W.2, it
is clear that there was demand and hence, the offence under
section 7 is clearly made out and on the basis of the said demand,
the amount of Rs.2,000/- was received by the accused officer,
namely appellant. The accused officer gave an explanation that he
was received the said amount to meet out the expenditure for the
measurement. To prove the same no evidence was adduced on the
side of the appellant. There was a proposal to measure the
property through the surveyor. The appellant has no authority to
receive the amount, to survey the land. Only the Tashidhar alone
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
has power to receive the amount to survey the land. In the said
circumstances, they have come up with a false defence. The Public
Prosecutor also submitted that P.W.5 was only examined to prove
the case of the prosecution that the recovery was made in his
presence. He is not examined to speak any other fact. In the said
circumstances, the evidence of P.W.5 to show that there was a
panchayat and an amount of Rs.2,000/- was fixed for making
measurement deserved to be rejected. According to the Public
Prosecutor, when the witness was examined for a particular
purpose, his evidence should be recorded only for the said
purpose and not to deviate it. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor also submitted that the explanation of P.W.5 that the
amount was received not as illegal gratification is not correct.
Admittedly, he has no authority to receive the amount as expenses
to measure the land. In the said circumstances, his defence is
stage-managed one in order to escape from the legitimate
punishment under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
7.1.The Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that
there is no explanation at the time of the receipt of the amount. In
the said circumstances, he seeks to reject the explanation offered
belatedly without proper evidence. The learned Counsel also
specifically stated that there is a delay in examination of the
witnesses. During such delay, witness/P.W.2 would have been
own over and hence, he seeks to reject the defence, theory that the
amount was received to meet the expenses to measure the
property.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing on either side and perusded the
materials available on record.
9.Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned trial Judge as against the appellant is sustainable?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
10.Admittedly, there is no dispute relating to the acceptance
of the bribe amount and recovery of amount. The learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the accused
accounted for the recovered amount. According to the appellant,
he received the amount to meet out the expenditure for measuring
the land. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the said
explanation was supported by the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.2
himself.
11.P.W.2 was examined in chief on 06.08.2008 and he
deposed about the demand made by the appellant as bribe in clear
and categorical terms, which reads as follows:
epyj;ij gl;lh msg;gjw;F vdf;F nrytpw;F & 2000
Ntz;Lk; vd;W Nfl;lhh;.
12.But in his cross examination conducted nearly after three
years on 03.03.2011 he gave a different version that P.W.2 agreed
before the panchayatar to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
appellant as “survey expenditure” and paid the said amount on
the date of the trap which reads as follows:
vy;NyhUk; fye;J Ngrp KbT nra;jjd;
mbg;gilapy; gzk; vLj;J nghpath;fs;
nrhd;dJNghy gzj;ij vLj;J te;jpUg;gjhf
mjid thq;fpr; nry;Yk;gbAk; vjphpaplk; nrhy;yp
gzj;ij nfhLj;Njd;.
13.Therefore, he was declared hostile and during the cross
examination, of prosecutor P.W.2 admitted and reiterated the
stand taken in the chief examination and the said following
portion of the cross examination is not challenged by the appellant
counsel by way of cross examination and therefore, there is
unchallenged evidence available against the demand and
acceptance of Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification.
6.8.2008y; vd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; 10.03.2004y;
tpVit ghh;j;jNghJ epyj;ij gl;lh msg;gjw;F
jdf;F nryTf;F &.2000-juNtz;Lk; vd;W
nrhd;dhh;. ,ij kWehs; nfhz;L te;J nfhLf;f
Ntz;Lk; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. vdf;F me;j gzk; nfhLf;f
,\;lk; ,y;yhjjhy; ehd; Gfhh; nfhLj;Njd; vd;W
nrhy;ypAs;Nsd; vd;why; rhp. 14.3.2005 md;W vd;id
ek;gpuh[d; Ma;thsh; tprhhpj;jNghJ 10.3.2005y; tpVX
uhikahit ma;adhh;Fsj;jpy; itj;J gl;lh khWjy;
Fwpj;J Nfl;lNghJ gl;lh khWjy; nra;J ju jdf;Fk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
jhYfh MgPrpy; cs;sth;fSf;Fk; Nrh;j;J &.2000-
nfhLj;jhy; jhd; gl;lh khWjYf;F rpghhpR nra;Ntd;
vd;Wk; Nkw;gb Nfl;l yQ;rg;gzj;ij 11.3.2005 md;W
rhaq;fhyk; 4 kzp mstpy; nfhzlhk;gl;bfpuhkj;jpy;
te;J nfhLf;FkhW tw;GWj;jp $wpdhh; vd;W
nrhy;ypAs;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;. me;j gzj;ij
yQ;rk; nfhLf;f vdf;F tpUg;gkpy;iy vd;W yQ;r
xopg;G mYtyfk; nrd;W Gfhh; nfhLj;Njd; vd;W
tprhuizapy; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
14.This Court is unable to accept the deposition of P.W.2
during the cross examination that the amount was paid to the
appellant to meet out the survey expenditure on two grounds:
(i)the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akil alias javed
vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2013 3 SCC (Crl) 63 and in the
case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, reported in 2015 (3) SCC
220 has held that if the witnesses deposed adverse to the
prosecution case during belated cross examination, their evidence
in the chief examination has to be accepted. The Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court also affirmed the said principle in the case of
Dharmaraj vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2012 (2) LW
(crl) 458 and the relevant paragraph is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
21.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision
in Akil alias Javed v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
2013 (3) SCC (Crl) 63, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court
has had an occasion to deal with similar factual situation
and ultimately held that in a criminal proceeding if a
witness has been cross-examined after a long interval from
the date of the chief examination and circumstances are
available for the purpose of believing that he or she might
have been won over by other side, such evidence can be
disregarded/eschewed.
Therefore his evidence in the belated cross examination that the
amount was given to meet out the survey expenditure cannot be
accepted.
(ii) He reiterated his stand in the chief examination during
the cross examination of the public prosecutor as extracted above
and the same was not further cross examined on the side of the
accused and the said evidence remains unchallenged. On this
score also the case of the appellant that the amount was received
to meet out the expenditure cannot be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
15.The appellant gave an explanation under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., that he received the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the
survey expenditure ie.,
thjp khh;f;fz;ld; epyk; NtW egh;fspd; ngahpy;
gl;lh khwp ,Ue;jjhy;> mjw;F ehd; khtl;l epy
msthplk; nrd;W epyj;ij msg;gjw;F cz;lhd
gzj;ijf; fl;b msf;f Vw;ghL nra;AkhW $wpNdd;.
mjw;F Ch; nghpath;fs; epyj;ij msg;gjw;F
cz;lhd nrytpid thjp khh;f;fz;ld; Vw;Wf;nfhs;s
Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;> mjw;F cz;lhFk; njhifia
vd;dplk; nghJfl;b itf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;
$wpdhh;fs;. mjd;gb &.2000I Nkw;gb epyj;ij
msg;gjw;fhf vd;dplk; nghJfl;b itf;fg;gl;lJ.
16.The Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the
case of Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra [1963
Supp (1) SCR 485 has held as follows:
“Therefore, the Court has no choice in the
matter, once it is established that the accused
person has received a sum of money which was
not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of
course, it is open to that person to show that
though that money was not due to him as legal
remuneration, it was legally due to him in some
other manner or that he had received it under a
transaction or an arrangement which was lawful.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
The burden resting on the accused person in such
a case would not be as light as it is where a
presumption is raised under Section 114 of the
Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged
merely by reason of the fact that the explanation
offered by the accused is reasonable and
probable. It must further be shown that the
explanation is a true one. The words ‘unless the
contrary is proved’ which occur in this provision
make it clear that the presumption has to be
rebutted by ‘proof’ and not by a bare explanation
which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be
proved when its existence is directly established
or when upon the material before it the Court
finds its existence to be so probable that a
reasonable man would act on the supposition that
it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is
supported by proof, the presumption created by
the provision cannot be said to be rebutted.
***
Something more than raising a reasonable
probability, is required for rebutting a
presumption of law. The bare word of the
appellant is not enough and it was necessary for
him to show that upon the established practice his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
explanation was so probable that a prudent man
ought, in the circumstances, to have accepted it.”
16.1.Therefore, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following
judgments has held that if the defence was projected at the time of
proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., without disclosing the same at
the time of the trap, Courts should slow in accepting the same unless the
defence should be established through evidence.
16.1.1In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B.Mulani,
reported in (2006) 1 SCC 407 has held as follows:
10. ... courts are wary of accepting belated
explanations given for the first time in the statement
under Section 313 and not at the first available
opportunity.
16.1.2.In the case of A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala, reported
in (2004) 9 SCC 333 has held as follows:
6... The very fact that he failed to mention this to
the IO at the first available opportunity, shows that
this defence is not genuine....
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
16.2.P.W.5, then Thasildar was examined to prove a fact that
rival party of P.W.2 who had the land adjoining to P.W.2's land
and who had mutated P.W.2's land in his name and obtained the
patta, agreed to measure the properties under Ex.P9. But, during
the cross examination, an answer was elicited by the defence
counsel that in the panchayat, P.W.2 agreed to give Rs.2,000/- to
the appellant to meet out the survey expenditure. On the basis of
the said answer, the appellant gave the explanation in 313 Cr.P.C.,
that he received the amount towards the survey expenditure.
17.The said evidence of P.W.5 and the explanation are not
only false and also not supported by either oral or documentary
evidence. According to P.W.5, “Kasimayan” and “Thanikodi”
were present during the said panchayat. They were not examined
to corroborate the said version. He was examined for the purpose
of marking and speak about Ex.P9. After retirement, P.W.5 in his
cross examination deposed about the factum of panchayat and
agreement on the part of P.W.2 to give a sum of Rs.2,000/- as a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
survey expenditure to help the accused. Apart from that, there is
no reference about the panchayat and amount in Ex.P9. Therefore,
the unconnected deposition of the prosecution witness without
any corroboration cannot be accepted. This Court is unable to
accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the
appellant's answer of 313 Cr.P.C., that the appellant received the
amount to measure the property.
18.The appellant never gave the said explanation during the
recovery of bribe amount P.W.2 gave such an answer after a long
time. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he
has no authority to receive the amount to measure the properties.
Even otherwise, he has not issued any challan for receipt of the
said amount to meet out the survey expenditure. In the said
circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the defence that
the amount was received as to meet out the expenditure for the
measurement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
19. P.W.3/ independent official witness also deposed that
the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe amount. mjw;F
vjphp khh;fz;ldplk; ehd; Nfl;l &.2 Mapuk; nfhz;L
te;jpUf;fpwpah vd;W mtiu ghh;j;J Nfl;lhh;. and the same was
corroborated by evidence of P.W.2. Apart from that, the original
file relating to the measurement of the P.W.2's land was in the
custody of the appellant. The officer recommended to conduct
survey and submit report on 02.12.2004. The appellant has no
authority to hold the file and surveyor is the authority to measure
the property and therefore, the case of the P.W.2 that the appellant
demanded amount to measure and mutate the patta in his name is
proved through the circumstances also. According to the senior
counsel the recovery of file is not proved, is not correct and also
cannot be accepted. The file was taken from the Village
Administrative Officer by the Trap Laying Officer/P.W.14 under
Ex.P4/recovery mahazar. The said fact was not denied by the
appellant during the questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., or
any of the proceedings. Hence, the demand also proved through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
the oral and documentary evidence.
20.Therefore, the prosecution proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt and there no case is made out to interfere with
the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellant demanded
and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.2 to
process the patta proceedings to convict the appellant under
Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
21.The appellant is aged about 62 years and suffering from
various illness and his wife is also suffering from old age illness
and therefore, he has to take care of his children. Hence, this Court
inclines to consider the said mitigating circumstances and reduce
the sentence of imprisonment from Two years R.I to 1 year R.I.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
22.Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with the
following terms:
(i)conviction recorded by the Special Court for Prevention of
Corruption Act, Cases, Madurai, in Spl.Case.No.54 of 2011 dated
15.10.2018 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby confirmed.
(ii)The sentence of two years of Rigorous Imprisonment
imposed for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby reduced to 1 year of rigorous
imprisonment.
(iii)The sentence of two years of Rigorous Imprisonment
imposed for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also hereby reduced to 1
year of rigorous imprisonment.
(iv)All the substantive sentence of imprisonment are to run
concurrently. The period if already undergone by the appellant is
ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(v) The other conditions imposed in Spl.Case.No.54 of 2011,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/05/2025 03:14:52 pm )
by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Prevention
of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai vide judgment dated 15.10.2018
shall remain unaltered.
(vi) The Bail bond executed by the appellant herein is hereby
cancelled and the Court below is hereby directed to take steps to
secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence
of imprisonment.
23. List this case on 27.06.2025 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 )
