Madras High Court
P.T.M.Pandiarajan vs State Represented By on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 13.12.2024
Pronounced On : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2018
P.T.M.Pandiarajan ... Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Madurai
(Crime No.05 of 2008) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Special Case
No.22 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Madurai, and set
aside the judgment dated 27.09.2018.
For appellant : Mr.M.Jegadeesh pandian
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.126 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in Special Case No.22 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
28.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge for the Prevention
of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. By the said judgment, the
learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under
Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, and sentenced him to undergo two years simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3
months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act; and to undergo two years simple
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3
months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
2.The appellant is said to have demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-
from P.W.2 on various dates, namely 03.07.2008 and 09.07.2008 to
give adangal and accepted the said bribe amount on 11.07.2008
and issued the adangal. Thereafter, the said bribe amount was
recovered by P.W.13/Trap Laying Officer of the Vigilance
Department in the presence of P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.8 after
registering case in Crime No.05 of 2008 for the offences under
Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 against the appellant and a final report was filed by the
Investigating Officer/P.W.14, before the learned Special Judge for
the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. The same was
taken on file in Special Case No.22 of 2011.
3. After appearance of the accused, the 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)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
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
14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and exhibited 24 documents as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and marked four material objects as M.O.1 to
M.O.4. On the side of the appellant, 2 witness were examined as
D.W.1 and D.W.2 and exhibited 1 document as Ex.D1.
5.The learned trial Judge, after completion of 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, which was denied by the
appellant. In the said circumstances, the learned trial judge, after
considering the entire evidence, convicted the appellant not
accepting his explanation, sentenced the appellant by passing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
impugned order, as stated above. Challenging the same, he filed
the present appeal before this court.
6. Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel for the
appellant made the following submissions:
6.1.By reading the entire evidence of the prosecution
witnesses and also through the documents filed by the
prosecution and the questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it is
seen that the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.13 and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. The
evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by the evidence of
remaining witnesses. In the material particulars, the evidence of
P.W.3 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. Similarly, the
evidence of P.W.4 is also not corroborated by the evidences of
P.W.2 and P.W.3. Apart from that, there is no material to prove the
demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant due
to the death of the material official witness. The evidence of P.W.2
is to be considered with caution as per the law laid down by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar and
another vs. State of Madras reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13.
The evidence of P.W.2 comes under the category of neither reliable
nor unreliable. Therefore, his evidence is to be disbelieved by
considering his personal grudge over the conduct of the appellant
that he did not agree for granting patta in respect of the land in
question and he also favoured the rival group in granting patta.
6.2.The learned counsel for the appellant further brought to
the notice of this Court that the particular omission on the part of
P.W.2 and P.W.4 and the contradiction relating to the presence of
P.W.2 and P.W.4 and also the non corroborative evidence of P.W.5
makes the case of prosecution doubtful. According to the learned
counsel, he submitted that each witness spoke about the particular
fact and those facts are not connected in chain and hence, the
demand and acceptance has not been proved. Therefore, he seeks
for acquittal.
6.3.Apart from that, the learned trial Judge has not
considered the defence of the appellant and the material
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
circumstances elicited by the appellant during their cross
examination and supported with the evidence of defence
witnesses D.W1 and D.W.2 and the defence documents Ex.D1 and
Ex.D2.
6.4.The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that there was a huge crowd in the said office. Therefore, the
alleged demand and acceptance in the said situation is
improbable, and hence, the defence of the appellant that P.W.2
had planted the money in the drawer is more probable,
considering the motive imputed against P.W.2.
6.5.The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that
the charge was only relating to the demand and acceptance from
P.W.2 and there was no charge relating to the receipt of the bribe
amount from one Jeyakumar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
7.The learned Additional public prosecutor made the
following submissions:
7.1.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other
hand, submitted that first demand is proved through the evidence
of P.W.5 on 03.07.2008 and the second demand is proved through
the evidence of P.W.4/Jeyakumar and the presence of P.W.4 and
P.W.2 on 09.07.2008 is further proved through the evidence of the
Village Assistant/P.W.6 and P.W.8 during their visit to the lands
of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and apart from that, the appellant himself
admitted the said fact during the questioning under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., and hence, the demand on the said date, i.e. 09.07.2008 is
proved through the further course of the action on 11.07.2008 by
the evidence of P.W.4, who clearly deposed about the receipt of
the amount of Rs.500/- from him by the appellant to issue adangal
to him. The above circumstances, apart from the evidence of P.W.
2, clearly prove the case of demand and acceptance and recovery
of the bribe amount. The recovery of the bribe amount is clearly
proved through the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.13 and P.W.3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
Even though one of the official witnesses died, the other official
witness was examined to prove the recovery of amount and also
the subsequent facts and also the preparation of the recovery
mahazar and to support the complainant's version. Hence, the
prosecution clearly proved the case.
7.2.He would further submit that so far as witness
Jayakumar is concerned, separate proceedings was initiated under
Civil Service Rules and the same is pending before the Tribunal
constituted for deciding the said act. Considering the said
submission, this Court found that as per the vigilance manual, it is
the prerogative of the investigating officer either to continue the
prosecution before the Court or the Tamil Nadu Civil Service DPT
Rules 1955. Regarding the case of Jayakumar, without prosecuting
the appellant before Court of law initiated prosecuting the
appellant before Court of law initiated proceedings before
Tribunal, but the relevant fact of the receipt of the bribe amount
from Jayakumar was considered by the Court below and this
Court also is to accept the evidence of P.W.4/Jayakumar to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
corroborate the version of P.W.2 and also the other material
circumstances to prove the demand made by the appellant on
09.07.2008.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and
perused the materials available on record and the precedents
relied upon by them.
9.The appellant was the Village Administrative Officer of
Nadumuthalaikulam. He was also in-charge of Panniyan Village,
Kullaneri Village and Kannanur Village. P.W.2 had a land in the
Kannanur Village. P.W.2 approached the appellant on 02.08.2008,
to get adangal copy for obtaining loan. The appellant asked P.W.2
to come on 03.07.2008. On the said day, when P.W.2 met the
appellant, he demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to issue copy of
adangal. The same has also been reiterated by the appellant on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
09.07.2008. On 03.07.2008, the demand was made in the presence
of P.W.2's relative P.W.5. On 09.07.2008, the said demand was also
made in the presence of P.W.4/Jayakumar. On 09.07.2008, he also
demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to issue adangal copy to P.W.
4/Jayakumar also. On 09.07.2008, the appellant visited the lands of
both P.W.2 and P.W.4 and thereafter, he demanded to give a sum
of Rs.1,000/- and instructed to come to the office with Rs.1,000/-
on the following day. Therefore, on 10.07.2008, P.W.2 approached
P.W.13/Inspector of Police attached with the respondent Vigilance
Department and gave a complaint/Ex.P2. After obtaining the
complaint, upon verification, he registered the case under
Ex.P21/FIR for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, he called the witnesses, P.W.3
and P.W.4 and Ravi Chandran and Sivaraj to the respondent's
Vigilance Office and introduced to the appellant and he
demonstrated the Phenolphthalein Test to P.W.2 and prepared
entrustment mahazar upon noting the numbers of the notes in the
entrustment mahazar and instructed to give bribe amount, if the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
appellant reiterated the demand to issue adangal. P.W.4 was
instructed to watch the proceedings happening between the
complainant and P.W.2. P.W.2 approached the appellant and
Sivaraj accompanied him. P.W.4/Jayakumar was also present in
the office of the appellant and the appellant received a sum of Rs.
500/- from him and issued adangal. The appellant reiterated the
said demand from P.W.2 of Rs.1,000/- to give adangal copy and
upon receipt of the said amount, he issued adangal copy and the
same was witnessed by Sivaraj (the said Sivaraj died during the
pendency of the trial). Thereafter, P.W.2 gave signal and the same
was seen by P.W.13 and thereafter, the amount was recovered
from the appellant in the presence of P.W.3. P.W.3 has clearly
deposed about the recovery of the amount on the disclosure of the
appellant and the same was corroborated by P.W.13's evidence.
All the proceedings form part of the contemporaneous record,
namely, recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P4. P.W.4 also gave a
statement that the appellant, before receiving the bribe amount
from P.W.2, had received the bribe amount from Jayakumar also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
and issued adangal. The said issuance of adangal to both P.W.2
and P.W.4 is admitted by the Village Assistant, namely, P.W.6 and
P.W.8. P.W.6 and P.W.8 also affirmed the recovery of the bribe
amount from the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that
the evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.
3. P.W.3's deposition that the presence of P.W.4/Jayakumar in the
office is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 never
deposed about his presence. Therefore, according to the learned
counsel, this is a material contradiction. This Court is unable to
accept the said contention for the reason that P.W.4 only knew
about P.W.2 and it is not within his knowledge that P.W.3
belonged to the trap team. The evidence of P.W.3 is that when he
and the deceased/Sivaraj entered into the Village Administrative
Office, P.W.4 came out from the said office and he stated that the
appellant had received a sum of Rs.500/- from him. Both the
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are that P.W.4 disclosed the fact of
receipt of Rs.500/- by the appellant to issue adangal to him.
Therefore, the presence of both P.W.2 and P.W.4 is proved by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.8. There is no dispute over the said
fact. Therefore, the said omission is not a material one to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.2 that they paid the
bribe amount to the appellant.
10.The learned counsel further submitted that there is a
material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4.
P.W.2 never disclosed about the presence of P.W.5/Ulagaraja on
09.07.2008 in the Village Administrative Office. According to P.W.
4, the presence of P.W.5 was never disclosed. Therefore, there is a
contradiction. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2008,
when P.W.2 and P.W.4 met the appellant in his office, he
demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to issue adangal copy and asked
them to arrange to visit their land. Therefore, they arranged an
auto, in which, both the appellant, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.8
travelled and went to the lands of both P.W.2 and P.W.4 situated
in different places, namely, Panniyan Village and Kannanoor
Village. The same was also not disputed by the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
Therefore, the meeting of the P.W.2 and P.W.4 with the appellant
on the day is established through the evidence. Hence, the said
contradiction has not affected the prosecution's case of the
demand made on 09.07.2008.
11. From the above discussion, the prosecution clearly
proved the demand made on 03.07.2008 through the evidence of
P.W.2 and it was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5. The
further demand on 09.07.2008 is proved through the evidence of
P.W.4 and P.W.2. P.W.2 corroborated P.W.4 and the reiteration of
demanded amount on the date of the trap on 11.07.2008 also is
proved through the material circumstances, namely, the receipt of
the bribe amount from P.W.4to issue adangal. Even though the
accompanying official witness Sivaraj died during the course of
the trial, the evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and trustworthy without
any infirmity and material lapse in his evidence.
12.Apart from that, it is the specific case the appellant that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
received the adangal. The recovery of the amount is clearly proved
through the evidence of the witness namely P.W.3/Ravichandran.
P.W.3 and the trap laying officer clearly deposed about the
recovery of the amount. In this case prior to the recovery of
amount the demand was proved through the cogent and
trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses. The explanation of
the appellant during the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.,
is as follows:
Nfs;tp vz;:26
,e;j tof;F rk;ge;jkhf ePh; NtW VnjDk;
$w tpUk;GfpwPuh?
Gjpy;:
Kjiyf;Fsk; fpuhkj;iij Nrh;e;j
fYr;rhd; vd;w %f;fd; kidtp Ngr;rp vd;gtUf;F
muR ,ytrkhf toq;fpa epyk; jq;fs;
mWNghfj;jpy; ,Ug;gjhf $wp thjp khap mtuJ
Flk;gj;jpdh; xg;gilg;ig vjph;j;J jfuhW
nra;jij kPwp ehd; xg;gilg;G nra;jjhy; thjpf;F
vd; kPJ tpNuhjk;. Ehd; thjpaplKk;
n[af;FkhhplKk; vjw;fhfTk; vf;fhyj;jpYk;
gzk; vJk; Nfl;fTkpy;iy thq;fTkpy;iy.
rk;gtj;jd;W vd; mYtyfj;jpy; mjpf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
$l;lk; ,Ue;jijg; gad;gLj;jp vd;id gopthq;f
vdf;F njhpahky; thjp khap mYtyf Nkir
buhahpy; gzj;ij Nghl;Ltpl;Lr; nrd;Ws;shh;.
13.In the said explanation, it is stated P.W.2 and his family
members got annoyed and they had motive for the reason that he
facilitated his rival to get patta in the Government land and the
appellant himself voluntarily gave the amount and he has not
demanded any amount of bribe. To prove the said motive, D.W.1
and D.W.2 were examined. According to the learned Public
Prosecutor, it is true that P.W.2 and his family member had a
claim over the Government land, which was in their long
possession for a long time. But the same was allotted to the rival
claimant of P.W.2 and the same happened long before the
incident. The specific case of P.W.2 is that he approached P.W.2 to
give adangal to a separate land and for that purpose, he made a
visit to the said land. Therefore, the said alleged motive has no
relevance to decide the present case of the demand and acceptance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
of the bribe amount. The said submission of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor deserves to be accepted for the
reason that the said alleged events took place long before the
present occurrence and the said event was entirely a different
transaction. Now, the present requirement of P.W.2 is that to get
the loan he wanted the adangal copy. To give the said adangal
copy, the accused demanded money. Therefore, the said motive
was projected by the appellant since he had the habit of receiving
the bribe amount from various parties, as a ready made defence.
The said finding of the Court supports the demand made from
P.W.4 for issuing the adangal copy. Therefore, the said
explanation is artificial one and calculated defence and therefore,
this Court is not inclined to accept the said defence.
14.Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of U.P. v. Zakaullah, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 557 has held as
follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
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.
In the case of State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, reported in (1984) 1
SCC 254 has held as follows:
10. It is now time to deal with the criticism urged as a
matter of course in the context of the police officer leading
the raiding party — namely that he is an interested
witness. This is true, but only to an extent — a very
limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
ensure that a citizen, who complains of harassment by a
Government officer making a demand for illegal
gratification, is protected and the role of his department in
the protection of such citizens is vindicated. Perhaps it can
be contended that he is interested in the success of the trap
so that his ego is satisfied or that he earns a feather in his
cap. At the same time it must be realised that it is not
frequently that a police officer, himself being a
Government servant, would resort to perjury and concoct
evidence in order to rope in an innocent Government
servant. In the event of the Government servant concerned
refusing to accept the currency notes offered by the
complainant, it would not be reasonable to expect the
police officer to go to the length of concocting a false
seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely
in order to save the face of the complainant, thereby
compromising his own conscience. The court may
therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel
safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the
oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers
even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to
be independent. When therefore besides such evidence
there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his
innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the
prosecution case. The present case appears to be a case of
that nature. If the circumstantial evidence is of such a
nature that it affords adequate corroboration to the
prosecution case, as held by the learned Special Judge, the
appeal must succeed. If on the other hand the
circumstantial evidence is considered to be inadequate to
buttress the oral testimony, the appeal necessarily must
fail.
14. So also it is not possible to believe that all the police
officers had from the beginning conspired to rope in the
respondent by hook or crook and had carried with them the
half complete form which was acquired in a fortuitous
manner to the consulting room in order to prepare the
fictitious Farad at the time of the raid. It is not possible to
believe that nothing had transpired at the raid, and yet, an
imagined account of the occurrence and the seizure was
incorporated in the Farad with a view to falsely implicate
the respondent. The explanation of the respondent as to
why the police officers should have falsely implicated the
respondent is also not convincing. This is what he says:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
“A person by the name of Nathu had died in police lock up
Hahi Police Station. In that case Shri R.K. Shukla and
other police officials were involved. A vast enquiry was
done in that case. The post-mortem of the dead body of
Nathu was performed by me. On that day Shri R.N.
Pandey met me and pressurised me to give post-mortem
report to the effect that no reason could be ascertained of
causing death. I told him that whatever will be right and
truth I would be giving the same in my report. Shri R.N.
Pandey told me that enmity with police is not good. About
18-20 police employees were suspended on my report. That
case is still pending against the police officials. I had
performed the post-mortem in December 1974, and the
revenge of the same was taken during emergency by Shri
R.N. Pandey while having league with Dr B.M. Pandey by
laying a trap on me. Babu Lal was made a willing stooge.”
15. The incident was a relatively stale one and it is highly
improbable that the entire police force would nurse a
grievance on this score and wait for such an opportunity.
Be it realized that the child of PW 3 was genuinely
afflicted with bone T.B. and was a genuine patient at the
hospital. The defence version is therefore altogether
improbable. The fact that the fingers of the respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
were dipped in the solution and the solution turned into
red indicating that the fingers had come in contact with
phenolphthalein powder is not disputed by the respondent,
but he does not offer any explanation. This is all that he
says:
“Q. No. 11: It has come in the evidence that your fingers,
pocket of the shirt from which currency notes were
recovered were both separately dipped and washed in the
solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the solution
turned red. Both the solutions were sealed in separate
bottles which are Ex. 24 and Ex. 25. What you have to say
in this regard?
Ans.: I can't say of what contents this solution was
prepared. When my fingers were got dipped in that
solution the colour of the same turned red. My bush shirt
had been made to put off by me. In my presence the pocket
of the bush shirt was not dipped in the solution. I don't
know whether they had sealed this red solution in bottles
or not.”
14.1.In the case of Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan,
reported in (2012) 11 SCC 642 has held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
10. The courts below considered the facts properly and
appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and then
reached the conclusion that the charges stood fully proved
against the appellants. The explanation furnished by the
appellants that they had falsely been enroped due to enmity
could not be proved for the reason that no evidence could
be brought on record indicating any previous enmity
between the complainant and the appellants nor was any
evidence available to show that the complainant was not
satisfied with the treatment given to his father and he
could act with some oblique motive in order to falsely
implicate the appellants.
15.The presence of the motive is not a ground to disbelieve
the evidence of the complainant relating to the demand and
acceptance when his evidence is cogent and corroborated with the
material circumstances. In this case, apart from the oral evidence
of P.W.2, the material circumstances are “the immediate issuance
of the adangal”, and immediate recovery of the said Adangal and
also P.W.4's evidence that the appellant also demanded and
accepted the bribe amount from him. Therefore, the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
appellant that he never demanded bribe amount cannot be
accepted as per the Hon'ble Constitution Bench Judgment.
16.When the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance
of the amount, then the presumption comes into play under
Section 20 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, and hence, it
is the duty of the appellant to disprove the same. Here, except the
above said explanation, nothing is adduced. Therefore, this Court
holds that the prosecution clearly proved the case of the demand,
acceptance, recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt and also the defence raised by the
appellant that the amount was planted in the drawer of the
appellant is also falsified from the circumstances. Even according
to the learned counsel for the appellant, the room was small and
the Village Assistant was sitting outside the room and hence, the
case of the appellant that he had planted the money in the drawer
in the presence of huge crowd is not acceptable. The case of the
appellant that there was a huge crowd and P.W.2 planted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
money in the drawer of the Village Administrative Officer is
unbelievable one and the same is a stage managed defence and
hence, this Court is unable to accept the said explanation in the
background of positiveresult of hand wash test. The specific
explanation give by the appellant that the Trap Laying Officer
forced him to take the amount from the drawer is not accepted, in
view of the specific evidence of the independent official
witness/P.W.3. The said independent witness clearly deposed
about the disclosure of the amount by the appellant after
conducting the phenolphthalein test. Therefore, in all aspect, this
Court is unable to accept the argument of the appellant and hence,
the conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 is confirmed.
17.The appellant during questioning of sentence before the
trial Court has stated:
vdf;F jw;NghJ 62 tajhfpwJ. vdf;F xU
kfd; ,Uf;fpwhd;. mtDf;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
%istsh;r;rp ,y;yhky; ,Ue;J tUfpwhd;. vdJ kfs;
gbj;J tUfpwhs;. vd; kidtp ,we;J 10 tUlkhfpwJ.
vdNt ehd; jhd; vdJ Foe;ijfis guhkhpj;J
tUfpNwd;. vdf;F tUkhdk; ,y;yhky; kpfTk; f\;lg;gl;L
tUfpNwd;. vdNt Fiwe;jgl;r jz;lid toq;f
Ntz;LfpNwd;.
15.Considering the said circumstances and also the present
the health condition of the appellant, this Court is inclined to
reduce the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year.
16.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the
following terms:
(i)the conviction passed against the appellant for the offence
under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, by the Special Court for Trial of Cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Madurai, dated
27.09.2018, is hereby confirmed.
(ii) the sentence of imprisonment to undergo two years
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
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, 1988 and the
sentence of imprisonment 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 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ;
is modified into
“to undergo 1 year of rigorous imprisonment each for the offence under
Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988; and the judgment relating to the fine amount is hereby
confirmed”.
(iii)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.,
(iv) The other conditions imposed in Special Case.No.22 of
2011, by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Madurai vide judgment dated
27.09.2018 shall stand remained unaltered.
(vi) The Bail bond executed by the appellant herein in hereby
cancelled and the Court below is hereby directed to take steps to
secure the appellant to undergo remaining period of sentence of
imprisonment.
17. 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: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
To
1.The Special Court for Trial of
Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases,
Madruai.
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: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/05/2025 08:25:51 pm )
