Madras High Court

S.Rajagopal vs State Represented By on 15 May, 2025

                                                                                       Crl.A.(MD).No.561 of 2018



                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                       Reserved on         :         29.11.2024
                                     Pronounced on :                 15.05.2025

                                                        CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                         Crl.A.(MD).No.561 of 2018

                     S.Rajagopal                                           ... Appellant/
                                                                                    Sole Accused

                                                               Vs.

                     State represented by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
                     Madurai.
                     (In Crime No.12 of 2006)                              ... Respondent/ Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
                     Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the trial Court and
                     set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge for
                     Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Case, Madurai, in Spl.C.No.6 of
                     2011, dated 19.12.2018 and acquit the appellant/accused by allowing the
                     appeal.




                     1/29




https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis             ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )
                                                                                            Crl.A.(MD).No.561 of 2018




                                       For appellant          : Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram
                                                                Senior Advocate for Mr.S.Thirupathy

                                       For respondent         : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
                                                                Additional Public Prosecutor

                                                          JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of

conviction passed in Spl.C.No.6 of 2011, dated 19.12.2018 on the file of

the learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act

Cases, Madurai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,

Madurai District, has laid the final report against the accused/appellant

alleging that he demanded bribe amount from one Parameswaran/P.W.2

for releasing him from a case and thereby, the accused is said to have

committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)

(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

3.1. The appellant was in the promotion list of Sub Inspector.

Hence, he was deputed to undergo training in the Othakadai Police

Station as 'Training Sub Inspector' from 10.08.2006 to 21.08.2006. P.W.

5 was the Inspector of Police and P.W.4 was the Head Constable of the

said police station during the relevant period of time. P.W.2 and one

Venkateswaran are brothers. They had some dispute over the partition of

properties. In the said dispute, bleeding injuries were caused to the said

Venkateswaran. With the said bleeding injuries, he approached P.W.5 to

P.W.5 directed P.W.4 to receive the complaint and give CSR number and

consequentially issued a medical memo to the said Venkateswaran and

also directed the appellant to conduct enquiry regarding the said

complaint. The appellant received the said complaint from P.W.4 and

visited the residence of P.W.2. Since P.W.2 was not present in his

residence, he instructed P.W.2's cousin to contact him through phone by

giving his phone number. Thereafter, when P.W.2 made a call to the the

appellant, he is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- from P.W.2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

either to close the enquiry on the complaint or for not taking any action

against P.W.2. He also reiterated the said demand on 19.08.2006.

Therefore, P.W.2 had approached the respondent vigilance department

and gave a complaint to P.W.10. P.W.10/Trap Laying Officer received

the same and registered a case under Section 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, in Crime No.12 of 2006.

3.2. After registration of the case, P.W.10 made a preliminary

enquiry and followed the pre trap procedure and he called two officials

namely, P.W.3 and another official witness, namely, Vellaisamy @

Suresh from the other Department. After arrival of P.W.3 and another

official, P.W.10 demonstrated the siginificance of the phenolphthalein

test to P.W.2 through the amount brought by him in the presence of

P.W.3 and thereafter, he prepared the Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P.3.

After preparation of the Enstrustment Mahazar, P.W.10 instructed P.W.2

to hand over the tainted amount to the appellant, if the accused made a

demand and upon receipt of the said amount, instructed P.W.2

to give a signal. Further instructed P.W.3 to go along with P.W.2 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

keep an eye on the events that would be happening during handing of

over the said bribe amount to the appellant.

3.3. P.W.2 called the appellant through phone and the appellant

directed him to come near Ayyer Bungalow bus stop. Hence, the trap

team along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and another official witness reached the

said bus stop and P.W.2 telephoned him and the appellant came and

questioned about the bribe amount and asked them to come to

Vasantham Hotel situated nearby the said bus stop. P.W.2, P.W.3 and the

appellant reached the said Vasantham Hotel and the appellant reiterated

the demand and received the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- from P.W.2 and

put the said amount in his right side back pant pocket and the same was

witnessed by P.W.3. Thereafter, P.W.2 gave a signal to P.W.10 and his

team and on receiving the signal, P.W.10 and his team entered into the

hotel along with P.W.2 and P.W.2 identified the appellant. Thereafter,

P.W.10 conducted the phenolphthalein test in the hands of the appellant

and the hands of the appellant turned pink in colour.

On ascertaining the handling of the bribe amount by the appellant,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

P.W.10 questioned about the bribe amount, which was received from

P.W.2. The appellant handed over the bribe amount to P.W.10 and the

same was verified with the Entrustment Mahazar. Thereafter, P.W.10

gave a Dhoti to the appellant and conducted the phenolphthalein test, in

the appellant's right side back pant pocket and the same turned into pink

in colour. After completion of the above test, P.W.10 arrested the

accused and prepared the Recovery Mahazar under Ex.P.4 and also

collected number of documents from the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.10

conducted search in the appellant's house and found no incriminating

materials and hence, P.W.10 sent the appellant for reamand. Thereafter,

P.W.10 prepared the observation mahazar as well as the sketch. On the

following day, P.W.10 handed over the records to P.W.12, Investigating

Officer.

4. After completion of investigation, P.W.10 filed the final report

against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and

13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the

learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Case,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

Madurai. The learned Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption

Act Case, Madurai. took the final report on file in Spl.C.No.6 of 2011.

After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him

under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special 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)(d) r/w 13(2) of 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.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 12

witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 23 documents as Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.23 and marked five material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5. Thereafter,

the learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

by putting the incriminating materials available against him in the

prosecution evidence. He denied the same as false and he neither

examined any witness nor produced any documents on his side.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

6. The learned Special Judge, upon considering the evidence

adduced and on hearing the arguments on either sides, has passed the

impugned judgment, on 19.12.2018 by convicting the accused for the

offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to undergo two years simple

imprisonment each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each

offence, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for

each offence and further directed the sentences to run concurrently.

Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused

has preferred this appeal.

7. Thiru.R.Shunmugasundaram, the learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:-

7.1. The prosecution has not proved the demand either through the

oral evidence or documentary evidence. Even though the Hon'ble

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Neeraj

Dutta and others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi reported in

2023 4 SCC 731 has held that the demand may be proved through

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

circumstantial evidence also, in this case, the prosecution never

established any circumstances to presume the demand. P.W.2 did not

depose about the reiteration of demand of bribe amount. P.W.3 also

never deposed about the demand on the date of the entrapment. Hence,

without proof of demand, conviction either under Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, or Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, is not legally sustainable.

7.2. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the presence

of P.W.3 in the place of the occurrence namely, Hotel Vasantham is

highly doubtful in view of the material contradiction between his

evidence and the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that P.W.3 was

sitting in an another table situated behind the table, where P.W.2 and the

accused officer were sitting in the hotel. But the contra evidence of

P.W.6 & P.W.7 is that P.W.3 was also sitting in the same table at the

time of handing over of the bribe amount.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

7.3. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the

complaint given by one Venkatesan constituted the cognizable offence.

More particularly, the nature of the injuries sutatined by him and the

allegations constituted the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore,

the case of P.W.2 that the appellant demanded money either to close the

case or not to take action on the said report is utterly false and the same

to be considered in the background of number of cases pending against

P.W.2. The non-examination of said Venkatesan creates doubt over the

entire prosecution case.

7.4. The learned Senior also brought the material contradiction

relating to the date of the demand. According to the learned Senior

counsel, P.W.2 deposed that on 17.06.2006, the demand was made. But

the case of the prosecution is that the complaint was made against P.W.2

only on 13.08.2006. Further, the appellant had been deputed as a training

Sub Inspector only on 10.08.2006. In the said circumstances, the

evidence of P.W.2 is not believable. He also submitted that P.W.2 had 9

previous IPC cases and one cheating case in the various police stations.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

Therefore, his evidence along with the said infirmity is material in this

case to disbelieve his case of demand of bribe.

7.5. He furhter submitted that as per the instruction given by

P.W.10, he was instructed to give the bribe amount to the appellant only

after reiteration of demand. The same does not form part of the

Entrustment Mahazer. The said material ommission is affected the

credibility of the P.W.2 and P.W.3 apart from the serious doubt over the

preparation of the Entrustment Mahazer.

7.6. He further submitted that it is the specific case of the

prosecution that the trap team immediately after entering into the hotel,

caught hold the hands of the appellant and took him to a room.

Therefore, there is a possibility that the phenolphthalein powder would

have contaminated in the hands of the appellant. Hence, the change of

colour in the hands of the appellant had no significance. The Trap Laying

officer deposed that they obtained the signatures of the appellant on the

lable of the solution bottle prepared after the change of colour to send the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

same to forensic lab. But the same was not corroborated by the

deposition of P.W.3. The Recovery Mahazer was also not clear in this

aspect. Therefore, the prosecution evidence is bristled with infirmities in

all aspects and hence, mere recovery of amount is not sufficient to hold

that the appellant had demanded and accepted the amount.

7.7. Further he agued that mere recovery of amount is not a ground

to convict the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of

Preveniton of Corruption Act.

7.8 The learned Senior counsel also regretfully submitted that

P.W.1 came to the witness box for cross-examination after a very long

period of 8 ½ of years from his date of chief examination, which was

conducted on 19.08.2009, and he came to the box for cross examination

only on 19.04.2018. According to the learned senior counsel, number of

persons had grudge over his promotion from the post of the constable to

the sub inspector directly under the special catogory upon his success in

the written examination and other test and therefore, and P.W.2 was used

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

as a instrument to obstruct his promotion. Therefore, he was hiding from

giving evidence for 8 ½ of years. The FIR was registered in the year

2006 and trial was completed only in the year 2018. Without any fault

on his side, the delay in completing the trial has caused the serious

prejudice and also his right of speedy trial is violated and on the said sole

ground, the conviction and sentence imposed against him is liable to be

set aside.

7.9. He further submitted that the solution taken from the pant was

not sent to the Forensic Lab to prove the fact that MO.3, the pant is the

seized pant. He further submitted that the material implicating

circusmstances of taking the sample namely, change of colour was not

properly put to him during the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

and therefore, he seeks acquittal for the appellant and he relied the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs State (NCT of

Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that all

the contradicitons are all not material one and the same have not affected

the root of the prosecution case. The witnesses were examined after a

long time and hence, such a minor contradictions and ommissions

usually happenes. P.W.3, independent official witness has clearly

deposed about the receipt of bribe amount in cogent manner. P.W.2 also

deposed about the prior demand. The prosecution also produced the call

details and the same was admitted without any objection. The same also

clearly established the frequent contact of the appellant with P.W.2. P.W.

3 deposed that before meeting the appellant and after preparing the

Entrustment Mahazar, a call was made to the appellant from the cell

phone of P.W.2. When the appellant made the demand of bribe amount,

all the persons over heard the same through the open mike from the cell

phone of P.W.2. The same also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3

and P.W.10. Apart from that, P.W.2 clearly deposed about the demand

dated 19.08.2006 and subsequent date, i.e., on the date of the trap, the

appellant reiterated the demand. Therefore, demand was clearly proved.

The delay in cross examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is not a ground to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 to acquit him for the said

charges. He also submitted that the bad antecedents of P.W.2 is not a

ground to doubt over the evidence of the prosecution case when there no

material was elicited during the cross examinaiton of the prosecution

witness for falsely roping him in this case. The complaint of Venkatesan

is not dipsuted by the appllant and the averment in the complaint is only

relating to the property dispute between the family members and hence,

the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded bribe either to

close the case or refer the case is probable one. He also reiterated the

finding of the learned trial Judge and submitted that there was no

perversity in the finding of the learned trial Judge.

8.1. This Court considerd the rival submission and perused the

records and precedents relied upon by them. Now the question is whether

the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant under section

7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Preveniton of Corruption Act is sustainable.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

9. Proof of demand:-

9.1. From Ex.P.5 to Ex.P 11 and the evidence of P.W.5, Inspector

of Police and P.W.4, Head Constable attached with the Oothakadai

Police Station, it is clear that the appellant was deputed to undergo

training in the said staion as a 'Trainee Sub Inspector of police'. The

complaint made by the said Venkatesan about his injuries due to the

assault made by P.W.2 and his brother was also clearly proved. The

said complaint of the Venkatesan was received and CSR number was

assigned under Ex.P.10. To prove the injuries sustained by Venkatesan, a

Medical Memo was also produced under Ex.P.8 and the corresponding

entries arealso found in Ex.P.10. The same was correlated with the

entries in the CSR book of Oothakadai police station. In the CSR book

under Ex.P.7, it is clearly mentioned about the entrustment of the duty of

making enquiry on the complaint of Venkateswaran with the appellant.

The said entry also corroborated with the oral evidence of P.W.5 and

P.W4. On the basis of the entrustment of the duty of enquiry, the

appelalnt also visited the house of P.W.2 and enquired P.W.11, (who is

the cousin of P.W.2) about P.W.2 and she deposed about the enquiry

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

made by the appellant and also he gave his phone number and directed

P.W.2 to contact him. P.W.2 made a call to the appellant and the

appellant made a demand of bribe saying that he would take legal action

if he failed to pay the amount. Therefore, he made the calls on further

dates and finally, he gave the complaint on 21.08.2006 to the respondent

Vigilance Department. P.W.3 and P.W.10 also specifically deposed that

P.W.10 instructed P.W.2 to make a call to the appellant at the time of the

preparation of the Entrustment Mahazar and P.W.2 contacted him and the

appellant reiterated the demand. When the appellant made demand of

bribe amount, all the persons namely PW10, PW3 overheard the same

through the open mike of phone of PW2. The evidence of PW2, PW3,

PW10 are cogent trustworthy in this aspect. Even on the date of the trap,

P.W.2 made a call to the appellant at Ayyer Bungalow and the appellant

enquired about the bribe amount. Relevant evidence is as follows:

9.1.1. Evidence of P.W.3 :-

2 ngUk; mtutUila 2 rf;fu thfdj;jpy;

brd;whh;fs;. ehd; xU fhtyh; cjtpa[ld; ,d;bdhU 2 rf;fu thfdj;jpy; mth;fs; gpd;dhy; brd;nwd;. m.rh.2k; vjphpa[k; mkh;e;j nki$ mUnf ,d;bdhU nki$apy; ehd;

mkh;e;njd;. gpwF m.rh.2 vd;f;F ve;jtpj gpur;rida[k; ,y;yhky; ghh;j;Jf; bfhs;Sq;fs; vd;W

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

brhd;dhh;. vjphpa[k; ghh;j;Jf; bfhs;tjhf brhy;yp gzk; bfhz;L te;jpUf;fpwhh;fsh vd;W nfl;lhh;. m.rh.2k; gz;k; bfhz;L te;jpUg;gjhf brhd;dhh;. mth; bfhLq;fs; vd;W nfl;lhh;. m.rh.2k; jdJ rl;ilg; igapy; itj;jpUe;j gzj;ij vLj;Jf; bfhLj;jhh;. vjphp me;j gzj;ij thq;fp jd; ngd;l;oy; gpd;g[w ghf;bfl;oy; itj;Jf; bfhz;lhh;.

9.1.2. Evidence of P.W.2 :-

nlk;gps; rpl;b Xl;lYf;F &.3 Mapuk;

gzj;Jld; tUkhW nrhd;dhh;. mth; nrhd;dJNghy; ehd;

gzk; nfhz;L nry;ytpy;iy. ehDk; vd;id gpbj;JtpLthh;fs; vd;W gae;J jiykiwthf ,Ue;Njd;. vdf;F 2 khjq;fs; fopj;J 19.08.2006 md;W vg;gbAk; vd;id gpbj;J tpLthh;fs; vd;W vjphpaplk; nry;Nghdpy; NgrpNdd;. Nghdpy; NgRk; NghJ vd;d uh[h ehd; Nfl;lgb &.3Mapuk; gzj;ij nfhLj;Jtpl;L Nfir Kbj;Jf;nfhs; vd;whh;. ehd; 2 ehspy; gzk; nfhLg;g;jhf nrhd;Ndd;.

vd;d uh[h vq;Nf ,Uf;fpwha; vd;W vjphp Nfl;lhh;

ehd; jpUg;guq;Fd;wj;jpy; ,Ug;gjhf nrhd;Ndd;. ehd; Nfl;l gzk; nfhz;Lte;jpUf;fpwhah vd;W Nfl;lhh;. ehd;

nfhz;LtUtjhf nrhd;dTld; Iah;gq;fsh g]; ];lhg;gpw;F te;J Nghd; nra;AkhW nrhd;dhh;.

9.2. From the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecution

proved the demand beyond reasonable doubt.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

10. Acceptance of the money:-

P.W.2 clearly deposed that he had handed over the bribe amount to

the appellant at Vasantham hotel. P.W.3 also clearly corroborated the

said version. Even though some discrepancies relating to the sitting

position of P.W.3 are found that P.W.3 was sitting in the same table of

the appellant and P.W.2 & P.W.3 were sitting in another table, it has no

significance to disbelieve the version of P.W.3. In the case of corruption,

due to belated examination, this type of the immaterial contradiction

usually happens and the same can not be materially considered to

disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the same was clearly

observed by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para

14 of the Vinod Kumar Garg V. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2020

(2) SCC 88 which read as follows:-

14. The contradictions that have crept in the testimonies of Nand Lal (PW 2) and Hemant Kumar (PW 3) noticed above and on the question of the total

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

amount demanded or whether Nand Lal (PW 2) had earlier paid Rs 500 are immaterial and inconsequential as it is indisputable that the bribe was demanded and taken by the appellant on 3-8-1994 at about 10.30 a.m. The variations as highlighted lose significance in view of the proven facts on the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the appellant, on which depositions of Nand Lal (PW 2), Hemant Kumar (PW 3) and Rohtash Singh (PW 5) are identical and not at variance. The money recovered was the currency notes that were treated and noted in the pre-raid proceedings vide Ext. PW 2/G. The aspect of demand and payment of the bribe has been examined and dealt with above. The contradictions as pointed out to us and noted are insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond doubt and debate. It would be sound to be cognitive of the time gap between the date of occurrence, 3-8-1994, and the dates when the testimony of Nand Lal (PW 2) was recorded, 9-7-1999 and 14-9-1999, and that Hemant Kumar's (PW 3) testimony was recorded on 18-12-2000 and 30-1-2001. Given the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

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 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. Relevant in this context would be to refer to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P.v.G.K. Ghosh (1984) 1 SCC 254 wherein it was held that in a case involving an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be safe to accept the prosecution version

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent.

When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction

10.1. The workers of the hotel also deposed about the presence of

the appellant in the scene of occurrence on the date of the trap. P.W.6

clearly identified the appellant in his examination. Ex.P.13 Ex.P.14 were

produced to show their presence in the hotel. Ex.P.13 was the bill for

showing the payment of the cost for purchase of cool drinks that had

been taken by the appellant and P.W.2. Ex.P.14 is the bill to show the

payment of the cost towards the coffee that had been taken by P.W.3.

There was positive phenolphthalein test in both hands and also right side

pant pocket of the appellant. The appellant never disputed the recovered

pant either during his explanation furnished at the time of the

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., The learned senior counsel's

submission relating to the signature of the appellant is an improvement

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

no way affects the evidence of P.W.10 & P.W.3 relating to taking the test

and the preparation of MO.1 to MO.3. The prosecution also marked

Ex.Ps.23 to prove the material communication between P.W.2 and the

appellant. Ex.P.23, CDR report contained the call details on the material

dates and the times of demand of bribe. The appellant at the time of

recovery disclosed that he received the amount. But he said that P.W.2

gave voluntarily. But in the explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

submitted that the amount was thrust in his pant pocket. Both are quiet

contray to each other. Therefore, a false explanation given during the

questioning under Section 313 CR.P.C., is also additional circumstance

to prove the acceptance of the bribe amount. Therefore, the prosecution

clearly proved the acceptance.

11. Once the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of

bribe amount by the appellant from P.W.2, the presumption under

Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, comes into play. The

appellant has not furnished any explanation to rebut the presumption.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

12. The learned Senior counsel with great effort argued that due to

the promotion of the appellant from the post of Constable to the post of

Sub Inspector of police, some motivated complaint was given by using

the petition enquiry pending against P.W.2. This reason can not be

accepted or there is no material or a circumstance to presume the same.

13. The submission of the learned Senior counsel that there was

miscarriage of justice on failure of putting incriminating materials

namely, taking of samples during the course of questioning under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., is also not accepted on the ground that the entire

evidence of P.W.10 is clearly stated by way of the questioning under

Section 313 Cr.P.C.,

14. The submission of the learned Senior counsel that as per the

evidence of P.W.2 he had 9 IPC cases and one cheating case and this is

not a ground to eschew his evidience, which is corroborated with the

evidence of P.W.3, independent officer and the evidence of P.W.10 who

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

had no motive against the appellant. Motive is not a ground to reject the

evidence of the bribe giver as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of “State of UP Vs. Zakaullah” reported in 1998 (1) SCC 557 and

the relevant paragraph is as follows:

“6. The complainant's evidence was jettisoned on the mere ground that since he had a grouse against the delinquent public servant he might falsely have implicated the latter. Such a premise is fraught with the consequence that no bribe-giver can get away from such a stigma in any graft case. No doubt PW 5 would have been aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent. The very fact that he lodged a complaint with the Anti- Corruption Bureau is reflective of his grievance. Such a handicap in his evidence may require the Court to scrutinise it with greater care, but it does not call for outright rejection of his evidence at the threshold. A pedantic approach rejecting the evidence of a complainant simply on the premise that he was aggrieved against the bribe-taker, would only help corrupt officials getting insulated from legal consequences.”

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

15. It is true that there was a abnormal delay in the course of the

corss examination of P.W.2 and P.W3. This Court is unable to accept the

argument of the learned Senior Counsel that P.W.2 was evading the cross

examination for very long period intentionally in order to take revenge.

The same is without material since P.W.2 clearly deposed that he had

gone for some employment.

16. Therefore, in all aspects the prosection proved the case without

any reasonable doubts.

17. The petitioner is aged about 68 years and he is suffering from

severe illness. The case was registered when he was at the age of 41

years, and he had undergone the ordeal of trial for more than 12 years.

1. This Court is inclined to modify the sentence imposed on the

appellant/accused by the learned trial judge. The sentence imposed

on the appellant is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment

to one year rigorous imprisonment.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

19. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the

following terms:

(i)the conviction passed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case No.6 of 2011, by the learned Special Judge for Trial of prevention of Corruption Act Case, Madurai, vide judgment dated 19.12.2018 is hereby confirmed.

(ii) the sentence of imprisonment to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,500/-, 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 rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

is modified into

“to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 06:20:57 pm )

offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the said sentences are to run concurrently and the judgment relating to the fine amount is hereby confirmed”.

15.5.2025

NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No dss

To:-