Madras High Court
S.Ravisankar vs The Inspector Of Police on 15 May, 2025
CRL.A(MD).No.391 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 12.12.2024
Pronounced On : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A(MD)No.391 of 2018
S.Ravisankar .. Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption,
Madurai.
(Crime No.8 of 2012) .. Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 27 of P.C.Act
r/w Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence
passed against the appellant by the learned Special Judge for Prevention
of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, in Special Case No.14 of 2014, dated
04.08.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Robinson for M.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/25
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
CRL.A(MD).No.391 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The Appellant who was the sole accused in Special Case No.14 of
2014 on the file of Special Court constituted under the Prevention of
Corruption Act cases, Madurai, has filed this appeal challenging the
conviction and sentence imposed against him in Spl.C.No.14 of 2014, by
judgment dated 04.08.2018, by the learned Special Judge for Prevention
of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai.
2.The Appellant was the Block Health Supervisor and he is said to
have demanded Rs.1,000/- as a bribe to issue the Sanitary Certificate by
the Deputy Director of Health Service to P.W.2. On the basis of P.W.2's
complaint, the FIR was registered and the Trap was organised on
12.10.2012 and the appellant reiterated the demand in the presence of the
official witness/P.W.3 and received the same and handed over the
“Sanitary Certificate” and he was entrapped by the Trap Laying Officer
and the investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and
final report was filed before the Learned Special Judge and trial was
conducted and the same ended in conviction. Challenging the same, the
Appellant filed this appeal questioning the conviction and sentence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
imposed on him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
3.The Brief facts of the case:-
P.W.2 was running a Special School in Koodal Nagar, Madurai, in
a Rental Building. Subsequently, he constructed his own building in the
Sikkandar Savadi and he made an application for issuance of the Sanitary
Certificate. For the said purpose, the accused officer demanded Rs.1,500/
and subsequently reduced to Rs.1200/- and finally came down to Rs.
1000/-. Thereafter, P.W.2 called the accused officer on 12.10.2012 and
the accused officer reiterated the said demand and hence, he made the
complaint before the respondent police and the Trap Laying Officer/P.W.
12 received the complaint and verified the same and thereafter, he
registered the case and called the official witness/P.W.3 and another
witness and also received the amount from P.W.2 and demonstrated the
phenolphthalein test. Thereafter, he instructed to hand over the money, if
the accused demanded the bribe. P.W.3 was instructed to watch the
proceedings taking place between P.W.2 and the appellant. Then the
Entrustment mahazar was prepared and the signature of the official
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
witness and the other witnesses were obtained and thereafter, the accused
officer is said to have asked P.W.2 to come near Fatima College,
Madurai. At that time, the accused officer met P.W.2 and reiterated the
demand and received the amount. Thereafter, he handed over the
certificate to him. Thereafter, P.W.2 gave the signal to P.W.12 and the
team visited the occurrence place and conducted the phenolphthalein test
and the hand wash was positive and in order to conduct further search in
the pant packet, due to the inconvenience in the public place, he was
taken to a nearby lodge situated in that area. In the lodge, the pant was
received and the phenolphthalein test was conducted in the pant packet
which wash also was positive. Thereafter, the Trap laying Officer
concluded proceedings of recovery of the amount and also verified with
the number mentioned in the Entrustment Magazar and thereafter,
accused was arrested and produced before the Trial Court. Thereafter,
P.W.12 handed over the investigation to P.W.13 and P.W.13 conducted the
investigation. Thereafter, P.W.14 completed the investigation and filed
the final report against the appellant under Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
4.The learned trial Judge issued summons to the accused and after
his appearance, served the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter,
the case was taken on file in S.C.No.14 of 2014. Thereafter, he framed
necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused pleaded not
guilty and they stood trial.
5.To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution
examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.19 and marked
M.O.1 to M.O.5. The learned trial judge thereafter, questioned the
accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., proceedings by putting the
incriminating materials available from the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and documents against him and he denied the same as false and
thereafter, the case was posted for examination of the witnesses on the
side of the accused. On the side of the defence, the accused filed a
detailed written explanation and in the written explanation, he stated that
they forcibly thrust the amount and he was harassed by taking to the
lodge and they beat him and fabricated all materials. On his side, neither
documentary evidence was produced nor witnesses were examined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
6.The learned Special Judge after considering the entire evidence
adduced by the prosecution and the explanation given by the accused,
convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced the
accused as follows:
Accused Conviction Punishment
for the
offence under
Section
Sole 7 of 2 years simple imprisonment and a fine of
Accused Prevention of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three
Corruption months simple imprisonment
Act, 1988
13(1)(d) r/w 2 years simple imprisonment and a fine of
13(2) of PC Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three
Act months simple imprisonment
Run concurrently
Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed the present Criminal
Appeal before this Court.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
the appellant already recommended the application before the date of
demand. The document relied by the prosecution itself corroborated the
version of the appellant that he had already recommended and also had
despatched the certificate to P.W.2. According to the learned counsel, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
is only a recommending authority and he already made the
recommendation and on the basis of the recommendation, the Deputy
Director also signed the said documents and the document was
despatched to the appellant under Ex.P10, much earlier to the date of the
trap. Hence, there is no official relationship between them and hence, the
alleged case of demand and acceptance is false and the case was foisted
using the motive that the appellant already questioned the running of the
school without obtaining certificate after transferring the school from a
rental place of Koodal Nagar to Chikkandar Savadi. Hence, the motive
was not properly considered by the learned trial judge. As far as the
recovery of the amount is concerned, the appellant was assigned the duty
to distribute pamphlets for the dengue awareness program. As per the
dengue awareness program, he was to distribute the pamphlets to the
NGO (Non Governmental Organization) and others. In this case, the
appellant incidentally met P.W.2 and handed over the pamphlets. The
acceptance of the pamphlets was also accepted by P.W.2 and P.W.3. In
such circumstances, his case of the thrusting of money in the pant pocket
is a plausible one and hence, the same has to be accepted. Without
accepting the same, the learned trial judge convicted the appellant. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
further submitted that the appellant at the time of seeing P.W.2 the
amount was thrust in the pant pocket when he was holding the diary in
one hand and pamphlets in the other hand. Hence, thrusting of amount is
probable to match the case of the appellant.
7.1.The learned counsel further submitted that according to the
prosecution, the FIR was registered at 8.45 a.m. Before the registration of
the case, the information was sent to P.W.3/official witness at 7 a.m.
According to the prosecution, P.W.2 reached the office after 7.15 a.m and
at 7.15 a.m only FIR was registered. Prior to that, the Trap Laying Officer
sent a message to the superior of P.W.3. In the said circumstances, there
is a doubt over the entire prosecution case. More particularly, the
appellant was forcibly taken to the lodge and the mahazar was prepared.
Hence, he says that there is a bona fide doubt over the registration of the
case as stated by the prosecution. Apart from that, the material certificate
was marked as Ex.P.6 and the said certificate, was issued without
containing seal. According to P.W.2 and P.W.3, the appellant had taken
the document and made an endorsement as Madurai North. But the same
does not find place in Ex.P.6. He further submitted that as per the Trap
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
Laying Officer, he handed over the original certificate to the de-facto
complainant and obtained the Xerox copy. In the said Xerox copy, he got
the attestation of the official witness, namely P.W.3 and the other official
witness. In the said certificate, the same is not available. In the said
circumstances, the case of the prosecution that the appellant handed over
the certificate to P.W.2 is not correct and the same is concocted one. The
same is further strengthened from the non-examination of the clerk, who
is the author of Ex.P.10. As per Ex.P.10, the document was already
prepared and the same was also ready even before 10.10.2012, in which,
there is an endorsement by the superior that the certificate is to be issued
on 10.10.2012 itself. Therefore, the custody of the document with the
appellant itself is doubtful and hence, the Deputy Director of the Health
Service, Madurai, was asked to participate in the recovery Mahazar in the
hotel and probably, he would have brought the file to that place.
Therefore, the non production of the original certificate with the
endorsement of Madurai North and the non-production of the Xerox copy
of the certificate with the endorsement of Madurai North and the absence
of signature of the attesting witnesses, namely P.W.3 and other witnesses
creates doubt over the entire trap proceedings. The learned counsel also
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
further submitted that the case of the prosecution has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt. To prove the demand, there was no evidence.
According to the prosecution on 10.10.2012, there was a demand through
phone. The phone details have been produced and the phone details
shows that there was no corresponding call details on 10.10.2012. In the
said circumstances, the demand was not proved. Only in the evidence of
P.W.2, he has stated that there was a demand on 20.09.2012, 26.09.2012,
10.10.2012 and finally on 12.10.2009 and hence, the demand was not
proved in accordance with law and without proof of demand, the
conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, can not be given against the appellant. The learned
counsel finally submitted that the reiteration of demand made on the date
of the trap in the presence of P.W.3 is unbelievable. The entire episode of
the recovery of the certificate is doubtful. Hence, he seeks for acquittal.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is cogent and they have cogently deposed
before this Court about the demand and the acceptance on the date
12.10.2012. P.W.3 clearly deposed about the acceptance of the amount
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
and the demand of the bribe amount before handing over the trap money.
P.W.3's evidence is that the certificate was handed over to P.W.2 by the
appellant. The said evidence of P.W.2 was never challenged by the
appellant and hence, the prosecution has clearly proved the case. The
witness has been examined after number of years ie., after 5 years and
therefore one can not narrate the event with precise memory and it is not
a ground to reject the version of the independent witness P.W.3 and P.W.2
and no contra evidence was adduced on the side of the appellant. In the
said circumstances, he seeks to confirm the sentence and imprisonment
imposed by the learned Special Judge.
9.This Court considered the rival submission made by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record.
10.Now, the question arising for consideration in this case is
whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant under
Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, against the appellant is sustainable?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
11.The Proof of demand and acceptance:
According to the prosecution, P.W.2 was running a special school
in a rental premises situated at Koodal Nagar, Madurai. Subsequently, he
constructed his own building in Chikkandar Savadi and he made an
application to obtain the sanitary certificate and contacted the appellant.
The appellant made a demand on 20.09.2012 for giving the sanitary
certificate. Subsequently, he made the demand on various dates. He
initially made a demand of Rs.1,500/- and subsequently reduced to Rs.
1,000/- and finally he made the demand on 12.10.2012. Therefore, he
lodged a complaint before the Vigilance Department and trap was laid on
12.10.2012 and the appellant reiterated the demand and accepted the
bribe amount. To prove the demand, the prosecution relied the evidence
of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.3 the independent official witness, has
specifically deposed about the reiteration of demand on the date of the
trap on 12.10.2012. P.W.2 cogently deposed about the demand made by
the appellant on various dates and particularly on 10.10.2012. On the
date of the trap, he made a call to the appellant and asked P.W.2 to meet
him near Fatima College. Near Fatima College, he met the appellant, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
the appellant reiterated the demand in the presence of P.W.3. The above
evidence is cogent and there is no infirmity in the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3 about the demand. The evidence is also cogent about the
acceptance of the bribe amount and the appellant after reiterating the
demand accepted the bribe amount and kept the same in his pant pocket.
Thereafter, he filled the sanitary certificate and put the seal and handed
over the original to P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.3. The said certificate
was recovered during the course of the recovery proceedings. The
phenolphthalein test also proved positive and the presence of the
appellant at the scene of the occurrence was also proved through
examination of the official witness, namely, P.W.3. Further, according to
the appellant he was deputed to the said area of the occurrence place to
distribute pamphlets to the public regarding the preventive measures of
dengue fever. The pamplet was also distributed by the appellant to both
P.W.2 and P.W.3. This defence has not been proved. Considering the
above evidence and circumstances, the prosecution clearly proved the
demand by the cogent evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the original
certificate was handed over by the appellant to P.W.2 is a material
circumstance to substantiate the case of the prosecution about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
demand. The acceptance of the amount is clearly proved through the
phenolphthalein test in the hands and further test in the pant pocket of the
appellant. In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution has clearly
proved the demand and acceptance without any doubt. The application of
the appellant was processed by the department, namely, higher officials
of the appellant much earlier to the trap ie., on 08.10.2012 and in the
certificate register, Ex.P13 also there is a clause. There is an entry made
on 10.12.2012. Without sending the certificate to P.W.2 keeping the
document is a material circumstance to legitimately presume the
truthfulness in the case of P.W.2 that the appellant had demanded the
amount and accepted the amount and handed over the certificate after
receipt of the bribe amount. In this aspect, it is relevant to extract the
evidence of P.W.7 which is as follows:
“,e;j rhd;wpjo; Vw;fdNt ,Ue;j jghypy;
mDg;Gk; eilKiwia jtph;j;J M[h; vjphp jhNd
kDjhuU;fF rhh;G nra;tjhf thq;fpr; nrd;Ws;shh;
muR tpjpfspd;gb jghy; %yk; jhd;
mDg;gg;glNtz;Lk;. vjphp thq;fpr; nry;yf;$lhJ.
11.1.Demand and acceptance is proved. Hence, the presumption
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
under Section 20 comes into play and there was no explanation on the
side of the appellant about the receipt of the bribe amount. In the said
circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the prosecution failed to prove the demand
and acceptance. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
there is a suspicion around the certificate issued by the appellant at the
scene of occurrence with the seal. The copies marked did not contain the
seal. This Court in order to verify the same, perused the original records
and also the file. In the record, the document is seen with seal. The same
was xeroxed and kept in the file of the vigilance department at the time
of the recovery.
11.2.The “Specific case of the Trap Laying Officer is that he
collected the xerox copy and handed over the original to P.W.2 at the
time of the prepartion of the recovery itself. Therefore, the said
discrepancies are not material to affect the prosecution case of the
demand and acceptance established through the cogent and trustworthy
evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. The learned counsel would further submit
that a part of the test was conducted in front of the xerox shop
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
ie., phenolphthalein test was conducted in the hands of the appellant in
front of the xerox shop and the next part of the test in pant of the
appellant was conducted in the nearby lodge, which creates doubt; The
trap laying officer in his evidence stated that the place is a public place
and it was not conducive to conduct the test in the public place by giving
the alternate dress to the appellant and conduct the test in the pant pocket
of the appellant in public place. Therefore, he was brought to the nearby
lodge and the trap laying officer gave alternate clothing and after
obtaining his pant, the test was conducted in the pant and the same
proved positive. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no suspicion in
the said process. The Trap Laying officer conducted the said process to
protect the human rights of the appellant. The learned counsel submitted
that P.W.2 has motive against the appellant on the ground that he was
threatening to take action against him for running the institution in the
new building without obtaining certificate for 7 ½ months. The said
submission of the learned counsel can not be accepted. Even if P.W.2 had
motive against the appellant that is not a ground to disbelieve the
evidence when it is supported by the circumstances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
11.3.As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases
the motive is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and also
P.W.3 who is an independent official witness who has no motive against
the appellant. The relevant paragraph is as follows:
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:
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.
11.4.In the case of State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
(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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
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.
11.5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there
were no material records to prove the alleged demand made on various
dates. Even though, they have collected CDR report, they have not
collected the particulars of the phone details relating to all the dates.
Therefore, the investigating officier failed to collect the materials and has
not conducted the investigation in a fair manner. The requirement of law
is to prove the demand. For proving the demand it is not necessary for the
prosecution to test the testimony of the defacto complainant by proving
each demand made by the appellant. The demand and acceptance is an
offence. To prove the demand on 10.10.2012 and 12.10.2012, there is
ample evidence. P.W.2 clearly deposed about the demand on 10.10.2012
and 12.10.2012. The reiteration of demand on the date of the trap is
clearly deposed by P.W.3/Official witness that on the trap date on
12.10.2012 the appellant reiterated demand. Therefore, when the
testimonies of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are clear, cogent and trustworthy and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
custody of the certificate with the appellant clearly proved the demand,
and hence, non-collection of the records to prove the call details of the
earlier demand is not fatal.
11.6. Minor discrepancies between the witnesses about the time
“07.00 am.”, and “07.30 am.”, “08.45.am.”, are immaterial when the
prosecution witnesses clearly deposed about the demand and acceptance.
These type of inconsistencies tend to occur when the examination of the
witnesses had taken place after the considerable delay of three years from
the date of the occurrence and the same cannot be a ground to acquit the
accused and the same has been fortified by the following judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (NCT
of Delhi) reported in 2020 (2) SCC 88 clearly stated as follows:-
14. ...Given the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
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.
Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the contention made by the
learned counsel for the appellant.
11.7.The appellant submitted before this Court and the learned trial
Judge, about his age related illness and pleaded to reduce the sentence.
Considering the mitigating circumstances, this Court is inclined to reduce
the sentence from two years to one year.
12. In the result,
(i) This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(ii) The conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
Act, 1988, passed by the learned Special Judge for Prevention of
Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, dated 04.08.2018, in S.C.No.14 of 2014,
is hereby confirmed.
(iii) Accordingly, the sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment
passed by the Court below for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby reduced to one year of simple
imprisonment.
(iv) The sentence of two years Simple Imprisonment passed by the
Court below for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also hereby reduced to one year of
simple imprisonment.
(v) The period of sentence already undergone by the
accused/appellant shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C., as against
the substantive sentence.
(vi) The learned trial Judge is hereby directed to take steps to
secure the appellant and confine him in prison to serve the remaining
period of imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
13.List this case on 27.06.2025 under the caption for “reporting
compliance”
15.05.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsg/sbn
To
1.The learned Special Judge
for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption,
Madurai.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
vsg/sbn
Pre delivery Judgment made in
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
