Madras High Court
R.Balasubramanian vs State Represented By Its on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 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).Nos.330 & 331 of 2018
R.Balasubramanian ... Appellant/Accused No.1
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.330 of 2018)
Karnan ... Appellant/Accused No.2
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2018)
Vs.
State represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.4 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant
(In both appeals)
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section
374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Special
Case No.6 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge Cum Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, and
set aside the judgment dated 29.06.2018 and acquit the
accused/appellants.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
For appellant : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram,
Senior Counsel
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.330 of 2018)
For appellant : Mr.S.Vinayak
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2018)
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
( In both Appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants/A1&A2 in Spl.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, have filed these appeals challenging
the conviction and sentence imposed against them under Section 7 &
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 12 of
Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Since the appellants in both the appeals were arrayed as accused
in the same crime number, these appeals are taken up together for
hearing and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.330 of 2018 was arraigned as A1
and the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.331 of 2018 was arraigned as A2. At
the time of occurrence, A1 was working as Firka Surveyor at
Chengipatti, Poothalur Taluk, Thanjavur District, and A2 is a private
person. P.W.2 is native of Pudukudi Village. His mother namely, Chelin
purchased a land from one Soundaravalli, comprised in S.No.209/3 at
Pudukudi Village. Since there was a joint patta in the name of the
original owner and her vendor, P.W.2 on behalf of her mother gave an
application to the office of Tahsildar, Thanjavur, seeking separate patta.
Due to bifurcation of Taluk, the same was transferred to the Tahsildar,
Poothalur Taluk, Thanjavur District. Thereafter, it was made over to A1,
who was working as Firka Surveyor at the same Taluk. After receiving
the file, A1 forwarded the file to the concerned Village Administrative
Officer to proceed further. Thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer
perused the same and recommended for sub division and grant of patta
and the same was forwarded to A1. A1 in turn, sent the same to the
Tahsildar office. The Tahsildar office considered the same and passed the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
order of sub division and the said sub division order was also
communicated to the mother of P.W.2. In such circumstances, the
appellant is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to submit his
report. Therefore, P.W.2 lodged a complaint to the respondent/Vigilance
Department namely, P.W.16/Trap Laying Officer. After receiving the
complaint from P.W.2, he registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2014 for
the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), 12 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. After registration of the case, P.W.16 made
preliminary enquiry and followed the pre trap procedure and he called
two officials namely, P.W.3 and another official witness. After arrival of
P.W.3 and another official witness, P.W.16 demonstrated the
siginificance of the phenolphthalein test to P.W.2 with the amount
brought by him in the presence of P.W.3 and another official witness and
thereafter, he prepared the Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P.5. After
preparation of the Enstrustment Mahazar, P.W.16 instructed P.W.2 to
hand over the tainted amount to the appellant/A1, if he makes a demand
and upon receipt of the said amount, instructed P.W.2 to give signal.
Further, he instructed P.W.3 to go along with P.W.2 and keep an eye on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
the events that would be happening during handing over of the said
bribe amount to A1. Thereafter, the trap team along with P.W.2, P.W.3
and another official witness reached the office of A1. P.W.2 and P.W.3
entered into the office and also met A1 at his place. At that time, A1
reiterated the demand and asked P.W.2 to hand over money to A2. A2
also received the amount and put it in his right side back pant pocket
and the same was witnessed by P.W.3. Thereafter, P.W.2 gave the signal
to P.W.16 and his team and on receiving the signal, P.W.16 and his
team entered into the office of A1 along with P.W.2. P.W.2 identified A1
& A2. Thereafter, P.W.16 conducted the phenolphthalein test in
the hands of A2 and the hand wash of A2 turned into pink in colour. On
ascertaining the handling of the bribe amount by A2, P.W.16 questioned
about the bribe amount, which was received from P.W.2. A2 handed over
the bribe amount to P.W.16 and the same was verified with the
Entrustment Mahazar. Thereafter, P.W.16, conducted the
phenolphthalein test in A2's right side back pant pocket and the
said wash turned into pink in colour. After completion of the above test,
P.W.16 arrested the accused and prepared the Recovery Mahazar under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
Ex.P.9 and also collected the documents from A1 & A2. Thereafter, P.W.
16 conducted search in the house of A1 and found a document and then,
P.W.16 sent A1 & A2 for the reamand. Thereafter, he prepared the
observation mahazar, namely, Ex.P.10 as well as Rough Sketch. On the
following day, P.W.16 handed over the records to P.W.17, the
Investigating Officer.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.17 filed the final report
against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and against the
appellant/A2 for the offence under Section 12 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, before the learned Special Judge Cum Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. The
learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, took the final report on file in
Spl.C.C.No. of 2015. After appearance of the accused, copies of records
were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special
Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the A1 & A2,
framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, against A1 and framed charge under Section 12
of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A2 and the same were
read over and explained to them and on being questioned, they denied
the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined
18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and exhibited 28 documents as Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.28 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
them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same as false and they
neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on their side.
6.1. The learned Special Judge, upon considering the evidence
adduced and on hearing the arguments on either side, passed the
impugned judgment, on 29.06.2018 and convicted A1 for the offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple
Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3
months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and further directed the
sentences to run concurrently.
6.2. Similarly, convicted appellant/A2 for the offence under
Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to
undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
in default to undergo 3 months simple Imprisonment for the offence
under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction and sentence,
the accused have preferred these separate appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
8.1. Thiru.R.Shammuga Sundaram, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.330 of 2018 submitted that
the charge is that A1 demanded the bribe amount for sub division. The
appellant recommended the application as earlier as on 12.05.2014 and
the recommendation was forwarded to the next higher level officer
namely, the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar also passed the order on 14.07.2014
and the order of the Tahsildar was also communicated to the mother of
P.W.2. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the appellant/A1 had
demanded the bribe amount to recommend for sub division is false one
and hence, there was no official relationship between A1 and the
complainant to demand money for recommendation.
8.2. According to the learned senior counsel, the specific charge is
that “ePh; nkw;go gl;lh kPJ tprhuiz bra;J 'ghpe;Jiu' bra;a ckf;F
ifa{l;lhf U:gha; 1000 ntz;Lbkd;W nfl;L>” and hence, the charge is
only for 'recommending'. But, P.W.2 has stated differently that the
appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for issuing patta, whcih is not in
consonance with the allegation made in the charge. The appellant is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
the competent authority to issue patta and he is only the recommending
authority to issue patta and he is also not the authority to issue a copy of
patta. Therefore, without charge against the appellant that he had
demanded money to issue patta, the conviction passed against the
appellant is not legally correct.
8.3. The learned senior counsel also submitted that when the
appellant lacks authority to issue patta, the case of the prosecution that he
demanded money to issue patta in the peculiar circumstances of the
present case is not legally maintainable. If the charge had been framed
that the appellant had demanded money to issue patta then the case of the
prosecution can stand. But, here, the charge itself is only to 'recommend'
and the same was done much earlier in the month of 2014. The sub
division order and separate patta order was passed by the Tahsildar on
14.07.2014 and the same was also communicated to the mother of P.W.2.
Therefore, there was no official relationship between A1 and P.W.2.
Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against A1 is liable to be set
aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
8.4. The learned senior counsel reading through the entire
eivdence and material documents submitted that in this case, the
prosecution failed to prove that there was an official relationship
between A1and P.W.2 and the demand and acceptance of the bribe
amount. In this case, the amount was not received by A1. The amount
was received by A2. According to the prosecution, A1 directed P.W.2 to
hand over the amount to A2. To prove the said chain of events, no
credible evidence was adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution
never produced any evidence to prove that A2 is a surrogate of A1.
Without any link between A2 and A1, the case of the prosecution that the
appellant/A1 is said to have committed the offence under Section 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not legally
maintainable.
8.5. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice of this
Court number of material inconsistencies between the evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.3 and P.W.16 relating to the preparation of entrustment mahazar,
recovery mahazar and conducting the trap proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
8.6. The learned senior counsel also brought out the
inconsistencies between the evidence of the official witnesses namely,
P.W.4 and P.W.14 relating to the recommendation made by the appellant
to sub divide and grant patta. Therefore, he submitted that the appellant
is entitled for acquittal.
9.1. Thiru.S.Vinayak, the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/A2 in Crl.A(MD)No.331 of 2018 submitted that to constitute
the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the
prosecution failed to prove that A2 acted as a conduit for A1. He also
submitted that no evidence was adduced to prove the link between A1
and A2.
9.2. The learned counsel further submitted that mere recovery of
the amount from A2, is not sufficient to fix the culpability upon the
appellant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
9.3. The learned counsel further submitted that when the offence
against A1 is not made out, the abetment charge against A2 under
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, will not lie. A2
specifically stated that P.W.2 is known to him and he handed over the
alleged amount of Rs.1,000/- to him and asked him to keep the same for
safe custody and thereafter, the Vigilance Department came to the
occurrence place and recovered the amount. The prosecution evidcence
also supported the said version that both P.W.2 and A2 are from the same
village and hence, A2 is no way connected with A1. Hence, he prayed to
allow this appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by
the learned trail Judge.
10.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
explanation, which was given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was to be
properly considered. It is true that the charge is only for recommending
for the sub division of land. But, evidence was adduced otherwise to
show that the demand and acceptance was for issuing patta. Therefore,
the appellant is said to have received the bribe amount through A2 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
hence, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, is clearly made out.
10.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pal Singh And
Another Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 11 SCC 508 and stated
that when there was defect in charge, the Court must see whether any
prejudice was caused to the accused. In this case, the accused neither
established the miscarriage of justice nor established failure of justice on
the part of the Court in framing the proper charge. Both the defence
counsel who appeared on behalf of A1 and A2 understood the case and
conducted trial as if the entire bribe amount was demanded for issuance
of patta. In the said circumstances, there was no infirmity in the judgment
of the learned trial Judge in conviting the appellant/A1 in Crl.A(MD)No.
330 of 2018 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellant/A2 in
Crl.A(MD)No.330 of 2018 under Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are cogent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
trustworthy. They were subjected to incisive cross-examination. But,
however, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. In the said
circumnstances, the prosecution clearly proved the charge against the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
10.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the material document namely, the file relating to the transfer of
patta was recovered from the house of A1. If the argument of the learned
counsel for the appellant/A1 is that he has no authority to issue patta,
then the possession of the material document in the custody of A1 should
have been properly explained by A1. The said recovery is a material
circumstance to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, he prayed for
dismissal of the appeals by confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellants.
11. This Court perused the rival submissions and perued the
records and the precedents relied upon by the counsels.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
12. The question arising for consideration in these appeals are
whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the
impugned judgment is in accordance with law?
13. The charge framed against the appellants is as follows:-
cq;fspy; 1tJ vjphp jQ;rht{h; khtl;lk; g{jYh;
jhYfh> brq;fpgl;lapy; gph;fh rh;ntauhf 09.07.2013 Kjy;
gzpapy; ,Ue;J te;j epiyapy; fle;j 05.02.2014 md;W
kDjhuh; b$uhy;L gpuhq;f;spd; vd;gth; mtuJ jhahh;
g[Jf;Foapy; brse;juts;sp vdgthplkpUe;J rh;nt vz;.
209/3y; thq;fpapUe;j 50 brd;l; epyj;jpw;F mtuJ jhahh;
bryp;d; vd;gth; bgahpy; jdpg;gl;lh nfhhp; jQ;rht{h;
tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; kD bfhLj;Js;shh;. nkw;go
kD g{jYh; jhYfh mYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gg;gl;L;s;sJ.
me;j kDit tprhhpj;J ghpe;Jiu bra;a ck;kplk; tug;gl;l
rk;ke;jkhf g[fhh;jhuh; ck;ik mZfp tprhhpj;j nghJ> ePh;
ntz;Lbkd;nw fhyjhkjk; bra;Js;sPh;. gpd;dh;> 21.07.2014
md;W> g[fhh;jhuh; nkw;go kD rk;ge;jkhf ck;ik
tprhhpj;jnghJ> ePh; nkw;go gl;lh kPJ tprhuiz bra;J
ghpe;Jiu bra;a ckf;F ifa{l;lhf U: 1000/-
ntz;Lbkd;W nfl;L mjid tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfk;
mUfpy; epd;W bfhz;oUe;j> mtUf;F mwpKfkhd kw;Wk;
mtUf;F cjtpfs; g[hpa[k; 2tJ vjphpapd; K:ykhf
22.07/2014 md;W fhiy 1045 kzpf;Fg; bgw;Wf;
bfhz;Ls;sPh;.
14. It is evident from above charge, it is the specific case of the
prosecution case that “to make the recommendation”, the amount was
demanded and accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
15. According to the learned senior counsel, in the complaint and
FIR, it is specifically stated that the appellant is said to have demanded
the amount for sending the report to the Tahsildar Office for further
action. The relevant portion of the FIR is as follows:-
,d;W 21.07.2014k; njjp ehd; g{jYh; jhYfh
mYtyfk; brd;W fhiy 11.30 kzpf;F mq;fpUe;j
brq;fpgl;o rh;ntah; jpU.ghyRg;ukzpak; mth;fis
ghh;j;J upg;nghh;l; buoahfp tpl;ljh vd;W nfl;nld;.
mjw;F rh;ntah; ghyRg;ukzpak; Rk;kh Rk;kh ntWk;
ifnahL te;J ghh;j;jhy; fijf;F MfhJ U: 1000/-
mtUf;F bfh:z;L te;J bfhLj;jhy;jhd; upg;nghh;l;
mDg;gp itg;ngd; vd;Wk;> ehis fhiy g{jYh; jhYfh
mYtyfk; te;J mthplk; U: 1000/- gzj;ij
bfhLf;f brhd;dhh;. mjw;F ehd; rhp ghh;f;fpnwd; vd;W
Twptpl;L te;Jtpl;nld;. brq;fpgl;o rh;ntah;
jpU.ghyRg;ukzpad; nfl;l U: 1000/- yQ;r gzj;ij
bfhLj;J jdp gl;lh bgw vdf;F tpUg;gk; ,y;iy.
mjdhy; mth; kPJ eltof;if vLf;f Kot[ bra;J
mth; nfl;l yQ;r gzk; U: 1000/-Vw;ghL bra;J
bfhz;L te;Js;nsd;. vd;dplk; yQ;rk; nfl;l
brq;fpgl;o rh;ntah; jpU.ghyRg;ukzpad; kPJ
eltof;if vLf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;.
16. From the above charge, FIR and the final report, it is clear that
“to make recommendation”, the appellant is said to have demanded the
bribe amount. But, P.W.2 in his evidence during the course of trial stated
that it is not to make recommendation but 'to change and give patta”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
P.W.2 also in his cross-examination admitted that A1 demanded the
amount only for sending report and the same is as follows:-
vd; jhahhpd; ,lj;ij mse;J mjw;Fhpa
hpg;nghh;l;il mDg;g[tjw;fhf yQ;rk; nfl;ljhf g[fhhpy;
brhy;ypa[s;nsd;. nk khjj;jpnyna Kjy; vjphp vd;Dila
jhahhpd; epyj;ij mse;J hpg;nghh;l;il jhrpy;jhUf;F
mDg;gp $#d; khjj;jpy; tl;lhl;rpauhy; vd; jhahh;
bgaUf;F jdpg;gl;lh tHq;f cj;jut[ nghl;Ls;sJ vd;w
tptuk; vdf;F bjhpate;jjh vd;why; ,y;iy.
17. P.W.3's evidence is contrary to the charge. The learned trial
Judge, in paragraph No.31 of the judgment stated that “A1 demanded the
amount for giving separate patta”. In this case, according to the learned
senior counsel, survey was already completed and report was also
submitted to the Tahsildar. In turn, the Tahsildar also acted on the basis
of the report and passed a separate order to issue patta. In the said
circumtances, the case of P.W.1 is false. To consider the said submission,
this Court feels necessary to extract the following dates and events:-
Dates Event
30.07.2000 Land in Survey No.209/3, Puthukudi North side, Budalur
purchased by Selin, Mother of P.W.2
04.02.2014 Challan at SBI, VOC Nagar
05.02.2014 Application Submitted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
17.02.2014 P.W.6 handed over to P.W.7/Anandharaj in Survey
Section
03.03.2014 A1 had received the Application and handed over to
newly created Budalur Tahsildar Office
17.03.2014 A1 had received the Application for Processing
12.05.2014 A1 had sent the Report along with Application
16.05.2014 File received from Computer Section
22.05.2014 P.W.10 had endorsed in the Application and Report
22.05.2014 File sent for Fair copy
16.06.2014 Order passed by the Tahsildar and Endorsement in the
File; The copy addressed to selin, Mother of P.W.2
14.07.2014 A1 had received the Tahsildar's Order
21.07.2014 Demand Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification by A1
21.07.2014 Complaint presented by P.W.2 before V & AC
21.07.2014 FIR in Crime No.4 of 2014, V & AC, Thanjavur
18. From the above dates and events, it is seen that A1 sent the
report to the Tahsildar on 12.05.2014. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an
order on 16.06.2014. The same also was communicated to the mother of
P.W.2. The corresponding endorsement has been also made in the said
document. The application was processed through passing of file from
P.W.5 to P.W.8. The order was passed much earlier to the demand.
Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 that the amount was received to issue a
separate patta is not acceptable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
19. The evidence of prosecution must be in line with the charge.
Charge is only “for making recommendation”. The recommendation was
made much earlier on 15.05.2014. The same was acted upon and separate
order was passed. From the records and also the evidence, it is clear that
the role of the appellant/A1 is only to make survey and not to issue patta.
In the peculier circumstances of the case, the said official capacity of
appellant/A1 is material one. The appellant/A1 has no authority to issue a
patta and his only duty is to take measurement. He also completed the
same, much earlier i.e., on 12.05.2014. Hence, the case of P.W.2 that the
appellant/A1 demanded the amount for recommendation is not accepted.
The evidence of P.W.3 that he demanded money “for issuing patta” is
not a consonance with the charge.
20. P.W.1/Sanctinoning Authority in his evidence, specifically
stated as follows:-
gl;lh tHq;Fk; mjpfhuk; tl;lhl;rpaUf;F jhd;
cz;L vd;why; Mkhk;. rk;ke;jg;gl;l epyj;ij mse;J
mJFwpj;j mwpf;ifia tl;lhl;rpaUf;F mspg;gJjhd; xU
rh;ntahpd; ntiy vd;why; Mkhk;. ,e;j tHf;fpy; Kjy;
vjphp rk;ke;jg;gl;l epyj;ij mse;J tl;lhl;rpaUf;F
mwpf;if rkh;g;gpj;Js;shuh vd;why; Kjy; vjphp mspj;j
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
mwpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; gl;lh tHq;fyhk; vd
jhrpy;jhh; bray;Kiw Mizfs; gpwg;gpj;Jtpl;lhh;. tHf;F
Mtzq;fspd;go rh;ntah; epyj;ij mse;J mwpf;if
tl;lhl;rpaUf;F rkh;gpj;j gpwF> g[fhh;jhuhplk; yQ;rk;
nfl;ljhfj;jhd; cs;sJ vd;why; Mkhk;. tl;lhl;rpahpd;
bray;Kiw Mizfis mspg;gjw;fhf g[fhh;jhuhplk; Kjy;
vjphp gzk; nfl;Ls;shh;. Kjy; vjphp gzk; nfl;ljhf
brhy;yg;gLk; njjpf;F Kd;ng gl;lh tHq;f tl;lhl;rpauhy;
cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;why; Mkhk;. kD
bra;a[k; xU egUf;F gl;lhit tHq;Fk; mjpfhuk;
tl;lhl;rpaUf;F jhd; cz;L vd;why; Mkhk;. m
gjpntl;oy; gjpa ntz;oaJ kl;Lk;jhd; rh;ntahpd; ntiy
vd;why; m gjpntL> g[yg;glk;> rpl;lh> mlq;fy;
nghd;wtw;wpy; gjpantz;oaJk; rh;ntahpd; ntiy.
21. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3
are totally against the terms of the complaint, FIR and final report and
the charge framed by the Court. The learned trial Judge has also passed
the conviction on the basis of the allegation which are not part of the FIR
and final report. The prosecution must adduce the evidence to prove the
charge as stated in the earlier Constitution Bench in the Willie (William)
Slaney vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1956 Sc 116
which has held that 'absence of charge is material allegation'. If the
charge is framed with the material particulars and the accused
understands the nature of the allegation, then it is entirely different
aspect. Here, the specific case of the prosecution is that the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
demanded the amount for recommendation. This Court perused the
complaint, FIR and final report and charge framed. In the above
documents, no where it is found that the accused/A1 demanded money
for the issuance of patta. There is irreconcilable difference between
making recommendation and issuing patta. Here the role of the
appellant/A1 is to make the recommendation. It is admitted case of the
prosecution that A1 has no authority to issue patta. In the said
circumstance, prosecution miserably failed to prove that the appellant
demanded money to issue patta and also received the amount through A2
to grant patta.
22. It is true that copy of patta was recovered from A1's house.
But, the evidence of P.W.3 is that after the order of Thasildar, a copy of
the patta will be sent to the Surveyor, Village Administrative Officer and
also to the applicant. In the said circumstances, keeping a copy of the
patta in the custody of A1 is not significant to presume that he
demanded money for issuing the patta. When the Tahsildar himself
passed the order and the same was communicated to mother of P.W.2,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
this Court finds that no offence is made out against the appellant/A1
either under Section 7 or 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act.
23. A2 is concerned, the amount was recovered from him. He gave
an explanation that P.W.2 handed over the amount to him without
disclosing anything and he also left the office hurriedly and thereafter,
the police officer came and recovered the amount. Further, he has
specifically stated that he does not know A1 and there is no reletionship
between A1 and A2. The said explanation is a plausible one. Mere
recovery of amount from A2 without any evidence to link his
relationship with A1 is not sufficient to convict A2 under Section 12 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. Neither any scrap of material was
produced nor any circumstances established to presume A2 received the
amount with required knowledge that the amount was bribe amount to be
paid to A1. From the isolated and unconnected circumstance of recovery
of amount, it cannot be presumed that A2 received the bribe amount on
behalf of A1. Hence, in all circumstances, the prosecution has not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
proved the case against A2 under Section 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. In this case, the prosecution miscerably failed to prove
the relationship between A1 & A2 and A1 directed A2 to receive the
bribe amount.
24. In the said circumstance, this Court is inclined to accept the
argument of Thiru.S.Vinayak, learned counsel for the appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.331 of 2018.
25. In view of the same, this Court finds that the prosecution has
failed to prove the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt and hence,
the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants is not legally
maintainable and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
26. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed on the
folowing terms:-
20.1.The judgment passed by the learned
Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, in
Spl.C.No.6 of 2015 dated 29.06.2018, is set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
20.2.The appellants are acquitted from all the
charges in Spl.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the
learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur
District.
20.3.Fine amount if any paid by the appellants
shall be refunded to them forthwith.
20.4. Bail bond executed by the appellants
shall stand cancelled.
15.05.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
dss
To:-
1. The Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330 & 331 of 2018
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
