Madras High Court
Sivagamasundari vs State Represented By on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.365 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 16.12.2024
Pronounced on : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.365 of 2018
Sivagamasundari ... Appellant/
Accused No.1
Vs.
State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Pudukkottai.
(Crime No.56 of 2002) ... Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of conviction dated
24.07.2018 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge, for
PC Act cases Pudukkottai in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003 and acquit the
appellant.
1/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.365 of 2018
For appellant : Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
Senior Counsel for
Mr.D.Ramesh Kumar
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
Accused No.1 in C.C.No.2 of 2003, on the file of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Special Judge (Constituted under the Prevention of
Corruption Act), Pudukkottai has filed this appeal challenging the
conviction and sentence imposed against her by the impugned judgment
dated 24.07.2018.
2.The appellant was working as Sub Registrar in Perungallur Sub-
Registrar Office, Pudukkottai District. P.W.2 was a promotor of lay out
of plots. He promoted a lay out in the name of Nithya kalyani lay out and
he sold one plot to P.W.4/Iyyasamy. P.W.5 Thiru.Periyasamy was the
document writer. Both approached P.W.5 and prepared the document
and presented before the Sub Registrar Office of the appellant on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
04.12.2002 after paying Rs.1,320/- as stamp duty and also paying of
other required charges. At the time of presentation of the document, the
appellant received the document and she and the accused No.2 (deceased
accused), namely, the clerk of the said office demanded a sum of Rs.
10,000/- as bribe to register the document and also for fixing the stamp
duty as Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft. instead of fixing as Rs.22/- per Sq.Ft.,
otherwise they will keep the document as pending document. The
appellant and the deceased accused asked P.W.2 to meet them on
09.12.2002 and demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe and the same
was reiterated on 13.12.2002 and also on 16.12.2002. On 16.12.2002,
P.W.2 agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- as part payment of Rs.10,000/- at the
time of the registration of the said document and agreed to pay the
balance amount on the subsequent date of the registration of remaining
plots. P.W.2 was not willing to give bribe to the appellant and the other
accused and hence, P.W.2 approached the vigilance department on
16.12.2002 and preferred a complaint to P.W.11 and P.W.11 received the
complaint and registered the case under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1985 and called P.W.3 and another official witness and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
demonstrated the phenolphthalein test to P.W.2 and other witnesses with
the amount of Rs.5,000/- brought by P.W.2 and thereafter, he smeared
the phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and handed over to
P.W.2 to hand over to the appellant upon her demand and also instructed
to give signal upon receipt of the said amount. P.W.3 was directed to
accompany him and keep an eye on the transaction taking place between
them. Thereafter, he prepared the entrustment mahazar and proceeded to
the office of the appellant and P.W.2 and P.W.3 went into the office of
the appellant and the appellant reiterated the demand and thereafter P.W.
2 handed over the amount to the appellant. The appellant asked A2 to
receive the amount. A2 received the amount, counted the same and
placed the amount on the table of the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.2 came
out and gave the signal to P.W.11 and his team. P.W.11 and his team
went into the office and conducted the test in the hands of A2 and found
that the amount was received by the deceased accused as per the
direction of the appellant/A1 and thereafter, the amount was recovered
from the table of A1, namely, the appellant. In view of the above
circumstances, A1 and A2 were arrested for receipt of the bribe amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
The recovery mahazar was prepared and thereafter, he conducted search
of the house of A1 and A2 and remanded them. He handed over all the
collected materials to P.W.12. P.W.12 conducted the investigation,
examined the remaining witnesses and obtained sanction and chemical
analysis report and filed the final report before the learned chief Judicial
Magistrate, Special Judge, Pudukkottai and the same was taken on file in
Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003.
3. Therafter, learned Judge summoned the accused and served the
copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, he framed the
necessary charges and explained to the accused and they pleaded not
guilty and stood trial.
4. During the course of trial A2 died and the charge got abated.
Therefore, trial was proceeded against the appellant alone.
5. The prosecution to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W.13
and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P34 and also marked M.O.1 to M.O.20.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
6. The learned trial Judge questioned the accused by putting the
incriminating material available on records and the accused denied them
as false. The appellant filed a detailed written explanation during
questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On the side of the defence,
D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked. D.W.1 was the
erstwhile Sub Registrar of the said office and he deposed that P.W.2
already had registered two documents and the same were pending on
account of deficiency of the stamp duty and there was a reference under
Section 47(A) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Act. In the said circumstances,
the value of the said land was Rs.7.50 per sq.ft and the appellant
demanded to pay correct stamp duty of Rs.7.50 per sq.ft.
7. The leared trial Judge after considering the entire evidence on
record convicted the appellant under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced her to undergo 1 year
RI under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment
and sentenced to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment
under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Challenging the same, the appellant filed this Criminal Appeal
before this Court.
8. The learned Senior counsel Thiru.C.Arul Vadivel@ Sekar,
submitted that the demand was not proved. The alleged demand on
04.12.2002, 09.12.2002, 13.12.2002 and 16.12.2002 are not proved. In
the complaint it is stated the demand was made on 05.12.2002, but, in the
evidence P.W.2 stated that it was wrongly stated as 05.12.2002, but
actually the demand was made on 04.12.2002. On 04.12.2002, the
presence of P.W.4 purchaser of the property is highly doubtful and the
document writer/P.W.5 also has not stated about the demand made on
04.12.2002. P.W.4 was working as a teacher in the school. He admitted
that he did not apply for leave to register the document. In the said
circumstances, his presence on 04.12.2002 itself is doubtful and in the
absence of any evidence about the demand made by the appellant on
04.12.2002, without any corroborative evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.4, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
demand alleged on 04.12.2002 is not proved. The second demand was
made on 09.12.2002. The specific evidence of P.W.5 is that he
approached the appellant and the appellant stated that he already
informed about the same to P.W.2. P.W.5 further deposed that on that
day P.W.2 was not available. In the said circumstances the evidence of
P.W.2 that he was called by the appellant and the demand was made on
09.12.2002 is false. Similarly, there was no evidence available on record,
to show that P.W.2 approached the appellant on 13.12.2002 on the
instruction of the document writer/P.W.5. P.W.5 in his evidence stated
that he has no knowledge about the demand said to have been made by
the appellant. The reiteration of demand made on 16.12.2002 also is not
proved in accordance with law. In the said circumstances, the demand
was not proved. Further, no recovery was made from the appellant and
the recovery was made only from A2/deceased. The demand is essential
in this case and the same was not proved. Therefore, conviction under
Section 7, 13(2)r/w13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is
not legally sustainable. He further submitted that there was bitterness
between P.W.2 and the appellant since the appellant was not in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
P.W.2 for registering various documents for under valuation. P.W.2 not
even disclosed about the pendency of two material documents on the
ground of the reference under Section 47(A) for insufficiency of the
stamp duty. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that on the
other hand defence marked documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and D.W.1 was
also examined to prove the said fact. When P.W.2 intended to register the
document for under valuation for which the appellant was not willing to
oblige and demanded the correct stamp duty, a false case was registered,
as it would cause hardships to P.W.2 for registering the remaining
documents. Therefore, a false case was registered. The other department
officials examined on the side of the prosecution would state that the
guideline valuation of the property was Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft. It is the
admitted case of P.W.2, he paid only Rs.1,320/- at the rate of Rs.5/- per
sq.ft. Therefore, the appellant demanded to pay the remaining amount
and kept the document as a pending document, which is permissible as
per law. In the said circumstances, she demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe is
false and she demanded the correct value of stamp duty for the
documents at the rate of Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft. Hence, he would submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
in view of the above circumstances the conviction and sentence imposed
on her is not legally sustainable. He would also submit that even after the
alleged trap, the document was registered and the returned to P.W.2 only
upon the receipt of balance amount of stamp duty computed at the rate of
Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft. In the said circumstances, the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the case against the appellant. The learned senior counsel
also submitted that sanctioning authority has not properly applied his
mind to the above circumstances and granted sanction mechanically and
he would also submit that the evidence of defence witness was not
properly considered by the learned trial Judge, in result, the entire
prosecution case is bristled with infirmities and hence, he seeks for
acquittal.
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered the above
submission that the amount was not received by the appellant is not
correct. The deceased accused A2 received the amount on the direction
of A1. Hence, the case of the prosecution that A1 directed A2 to receive
the amount and he placed it on the table of A1 is the fact to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
considered. The receipt of the amount by A2 was admitted by both the
appellant and A2 and they stated that they received the amount only
towards the payment of the stamp duty and subsequently changed the
version stating that the amount was received for the purpose of
purchasing computer and other materials for the office. The said
explanation was recorded in the recovery mahazar and therefore, the case
of the learned Senior counsel that the amount was not received by the
appellant is not correct. He directed A2 to receive the amount. Apart
from that on 04.12.2002, P.W.4 was available and the document was
registered with his signature, and therefore, his presence is proved and
his evidence that she demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe to register the
document has to be considered. It is true that the amount was
subsequently paid at the rate of Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft., and that is not a
ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and P.W.4 who
categorically stated that the appellant and A2 demanded and accepted
bribe. In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution clearly proved
the charge under Sections 7, 13(i)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. He also submitted that the explanation offered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
appellant is not plausible and the same was stage managed one and
hence, he seeks to convict the appellant and also confirm the minimum
sentence imposed by the trial Court. He would also submit that the other
discrepancies and inconsistencies are due to the examination of the
witnesses after number of years from the date of occurrence, and it is
quite natural for such inconsistencies and the same is not a ground to
disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, he seeks
to confirm the conviction and sentence.
10. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned Senior counsel 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.
11. The question is whether the prosecution proved the case of the
demand and acceptance by the appellant so as to sustain conviction and
sentence of imprisonment vide impugned judgment against her U/s.7,
13(2) r/w.13 (1) (d) 5 PC Act 1988?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
12.Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification:
It is duty of the prosecution to prove the acceptance of the illegal
gratification through clinching evidence. The same has been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions and some of the
decisions are as follows:
M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala, 8. Mere demand by itself is not sufficient
(1996) 11 SCC 720 to establish the offence. Therefore, the
other aspect, namely, acceptance is very
important
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 The mere recovery by itself cannot prove
SCC 779 the charge of the prosecution against the
accused, in the absence of any evidence
to prove payment of bribe or to show that
the accused voluntarily accepted the
money knowing it to be bribe.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Dashrath Singh .Satvir Singh v. 35. In the said case this Court in
State of Delhi, (2014) 13 SCC 143 unequivocal terms has held that mere
demand by itself is not sufficient to
establish the offence under the Act. The
other aspect, namely, acceptance is also
very important. There must be clinching
evidence with the tacit approval of the
accused that money was put by PW 2 on
the steel cot as stated by him in his
evidence as illegal gratification
Chauhan v. CBI, (2019) 17 SCC 29. It is for the reason that in order to
509 prove a case against the appellant, it was
necessary for the prosecution to prove
the twin requirement of “demand and the
acceptance of the bribe amount by the
appellant”. As mentioned above, it was
the case of the prosecution in the charge
that the appellant did not accept the bribe
money but the money was accepted and
recovered from the possession of
Rajinder Kumar, co-accused (A-1)
12.1. The appellant was Sub Registrar, Perungallur Sub-
Registration Office (Documents), Pudukkottai District. The
deceased/accused A2 was the head clerk of the said office. P.W.2 is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
promoter of Nithyakalayani lay out selling housing plots situated in
survey No.97/3 measuring an extent of 2.80 acres. He promotted the
layout of the said land by dividing into 36 plots. He decided to sell plot
No.17 to P.W.4/ Head Master of a school and sold plot No.17 measuring
an extent of 2200 sq.ft of land. On 4.12.2002 P.W.5 document writer
prepared the document and presented it before the appellant's registration
office for registration calculating the stamp duty at the rate of Rs.5 per
sq.ft. The appellant registered the same and kept it as pending document
No.31 of 2002 on the ground of inadequacy of stamp duty and appellant
threatened and demanded to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe,
otherwise, she would fix the value as Rs.22 per sq.ft /-. P.W.2 agreed to
pay part of the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- for the registration of the
document for the present and agreed to pay the remaining amount at the
time of further registration of the plots. On 16.12.2002, P.W.2 made a
complaint before the Vigilance Department and trap was arranged.
According to P.W.2 and P.W.3 on the date of the trap, she directed P.W.2
to hand over the bribe amount to A2 to fix and Collect the stamp duty at
the rate of Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft instead of Rs.22per sq.ft /- and complete the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
registration. Hence P.W.2 handed over Rs.5,000/- to A2
deceased/accused and A2 received the amount and kept it on the table of
the appellant. P.W.3 deposed that Appellant (A1) never received the
amount from P.W.2 and P.W.2 never enquired about the document and
also the alleged bribe amount also was kept on the table till the trap team
arrived to the occurrence place after receipt of the signal from P.W.2.
Therefore, the appellant neither handled the bribe amount nor received
the bribe amount. The amount was recovered upon disclosure statement
of A2. Therefore, there is no evidence available on record to prove that
the appellant received the bribe amount and no circumstances was
established to presume the receipt of bribe amount by A2 on behalf of
A1. PW.3's evidence also materially contradicted the evidence of P.W.2
in respect of the rate of the Stamp duty which reads as follows:
P.W.2 P.W.3
rptfhkpRe;jhp vd;id ghh;j;J rhh;gjpthsh; re;jpuNrfuidg;
Vd; ,t;tsT Nyl; vd;W ghh;jJ Vd; ,t;tsT Nyl;lh
Nfl;lhh;. ehd; rJub &.7.50f;Nf te;jpUf;fpwPh;fs; vd;W Nfl;lhh;
nra;JtpLNtd;> gzk; nfhz;L njhlh;e;J rhh;gjpthsh; mth;fs;
te;J ,Uf;fpwPh;fsh vd;W &.5.00/- Nul;Lf;F gjpT
Nfl;lhh;. ehd; vdJ nra;fpNwd; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;.
igapy; ,Ue;J &.5000/-j;ij kw;w gj;jpuq;fisAk; mNj
vLj;J nfhLj;Njd;. Nul;Lf;F gjpT nra;fpNwd; vd;W
nrhd;dhh;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
12.2. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant asked bribe to
register the document at the rate of Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft and not at the rate
of Rs.5.00/- per sq.ft. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 is full of
infirmities on the material particulars. It is the case of the appellant that
there was deficit stamp duty and hence she asked to pay the amount at
the rate of Rs.7.50/- per Sq.Ft and also it is admitted case of the
prosecution that PW.2 paid stamp duty only at the rate of Rs.5.00/- per
Sq.Ft. In all aspects, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the
acceptance of illegal gratification on the part of the appellant and hence
without proof of the receipt of the illegal gratification, conviction under
section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
cannot be sustained.
13. Proof of Demand:
It is the obligation on the part of the prosecution to prove demand
and acceptance of illegal gratification in order to sustain the conviction
under section 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and the Hon'ble
Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 has reiterated the
same in para 88.1.(a) and (b) which reads as follows:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of
acceptance of illegal gratification the accused, the prosecution has to first
by a public servant as a fact in prove the demand of illegal gratification
issue by the prosecution is a sine and the subsequent acceptance as a matter
qua non in order to establish the of fact. This fact in issue can be proved
guilt of the accused public either by direct evidence which can be in
servant under Sections 7 and the nature of oral evidence or documentary
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act evidence
13.1. In the earlier judgment reported in following case also the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the same:
Dashrath Singh Chauhan Rajesh Gupta v. State, (2022) 20 SCC
v. CBI, (2019) 17 SCC 509 793
32. Since in order to attract the 18. For an offence under Section 7 of the
rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read PC Act, the demand of illegal gratification is
with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC a sine qua non to prove the guilt. Mere
Act, the prosecution was under recovery of currency notes cannot constitute
a legal obligation to prove the an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act,
twin requirements of “demand unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt
and acceptance of bribe money that the accused voluntarily accepted the
by the accused”, the proving of money, knowing it to be a bribe. The proof of
one alone but not the other was acceptance of illegal gratification can follow
not sufficient. only if there is proof of demand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
13.2. In this case, the prosecution has come forward with a case
that the appellant demanded bribe amount on 04.12.2002, 09.12.2002
and 13.12.2002.
13.3. On reading of evidence of P.W.2 about the events that had
taken place on 04.12.2002, there are two inconsistent versions in chief
examination of P.W.2. In the first part of the evidence, he stated that he,
P.W.4(purchaser)and P.W.5 document writer approached the appellant
to register the document with payment of stamp duty at the rate of Rs.5/-
per sq.ft and the appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe to register the
documents at the rate of Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft by threatening him that she
would otherwise fix the value of Rs.22/- per sq.ft in the event of failure
to pay the bribe amount. In the subsequent portion of the evidence, he
deposed that before his arrival, P.W.4 purchaser had informed that he
paid registration charges and 'A2 made a demand of Rs.10,000/- and said
the document is kept as pending document in the following words:
ehq;fs; tUtjw;F Kd;Ng ma;ahr;rhkp
gjpTf;fl;lzkhf &.110/-k;> cl;gphpT fl;lzkhf &.
40/- fl;b urPJ thq;fpdhh;. ehq;fs; vOjpa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
gj;jpuj;ij ngd;bq; lhf;Fnkz;l;lhf itj;Js;Nshk;
vd;Wk; &.10000/-j;ij nfhLj;Jtpl;L gjpT
nra;Jnfhs;sq;fs; vd;W v2 re;jhdfpU];zd;
nrhd;dhh;.
13.4.From the above inconsistencies in his evidence it is not clear
whether A2 made a demand for himself or A2 demanded the said amount
as per the instructions of the appellant. Thus the evidence of P.W.2 is
extremely shaky and unconvincing. Therefore, in view of two
contradictory versions, the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused,
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Mal v. State
(Delhi Admn.), reported in (1979) 4 SCC 725:
“It is well-settled that where witnesses make two
inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage
or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes
unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of
special circumstances no conviction can be based on the
evidence of such witnesses. .mere recovery by itself cannot
prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant,
in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe
or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
money.”
13.5. P.W.5 the document writer also has not deposed about the
demand made by the appellant on 04.12.2002. He specifically stated that
he had gone away from the registration office. The evidence is as
follows:
04.12.2002-y; ngUq;fSh; rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;Jf;F
me;j gj;jpuj;ij gjpT nra;tjw;fhf ehd;
Ngha; ,Ue;Njd;. mg;NghJ vd;NdhL re;jpuNrfud;>
IahrhkpAk; te;jhh;fs;. ehq;fs; mq;F Ngha;
rhh;gjpthshuhf ,Ue;j 1tJ vjphpia ghh;j;Njhk;. mthplk;
gj;jpuj;ij Iahrhkp nfhLj;jhh;. mth; mg;NghJ jiyik
vOj;juhf gzpGhpe;j re;;jhdfpU\;zid Iahrhkp thq;fpa
epyj;Jf;F gf;fj;jpy; ,l kjpg;G vd;d vd;W Nfl;lhh;.
2tJ vjphp mYtyf hpf;fhh;Lfis vLj;Jg;ghh;j;Jtpl;L
me;j gFjpapy; rJub &.7.50 tpw;F fpuak; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ
vd;Wnrhd;dhh;. mJ me;j epyj;jpd; rh;Nt vz;.98.
mjd;gpwF ehd; NtW Ntiyahf ehd; ntspNa
Ngha;tpl;Nld;.
13.6.Hence the case of P.W.2 that the appellant made a demand of
Rs.10,000/- in the presence of P.W.5 and P.W.4 is not believable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Therefore, the case of the prosecution that on 04.12.2002, the appellant
demanded Rs.10,000/- is far from truth.
13.7. P.W.2 deposed that on 09.12.2002, the appellant asked to
meet her at the office through P.W.5 and he met her and she reiterated
the said demand. According to P.W.2, he along with P.W.5 the document
writer met P.W.2. But P.W.5 deposed that he had not accompanied him.
Quite contrary to the above evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5, P.W.4
deposed that on 09.12.2002, P.W.2 was not available in the city and he
alone met the appellant. The said evidence is as follows:
gpwF 9.12.2002-k; Njjp rhh;gjpthsh; mYtyfj;jpw;F ehd;
kl;Lk; NghNdd;. mg;NghJ 1tJ vjphpiag; ghh;j;Njd;.
1tJ vjphp m.rh.2aplk; tptuk; nrhy;ypAs;sjhfTk;
mtiu Ngha; ghUq;fs; vd;Wnrhd;dhh;. ehd; Ngha; m.rh.
2I ghh;jN ; jd; Mdhy; mth; Chpy; ,y;iy. gpd;G
vd;Dila gs;sp Ntiyf;F Ngha;tpl;Nld;.
Hence, the demand on 09.12.2002 as alleged by the prosecution, from
P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.5 is also doubtful.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
13.8. The last demand on 13.12.2002 also was not proved with
corroborative evidence of P.W.2's version. According to the prosecution,
the appellant asked P.W.5 to meet P.W.2 and directed to meet her in her
office. On the date she reiterated the demand. P.W.5 deposed that he had
not accompanied P.W.2 . In the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W.
2 is without any corroboration that the appellant made the demand. The
prosecution miserably failed to prove the demand made by the appellant
on the said date.
13.9. The purpose of the demand according to the prosecution is
that the appellant demanded the bribe amount not to fix the stamp duty at
the rate of Rs.22/- and to fix the valuation at Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft. From
the documents and other evidence, it is clear that as per the guideline
value the stamp duty is Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft and not Rs.22/-. It is not the
case of any of the officials from the department examined on the side of
the prosecution that the value of the stamp duty is Rs.22/- per sq.ft. In
those circumstances, she threatened P.W.2 that she would fix Rs.22/- per
sq.ft., is not acceptable one and also false for the reason that, she had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
already registered two documents for the same lay out and insisted to pay
Rs.7.50/- per Sq.Ft. and the guideline value also was produced before
this court and the same also revealed Rs.7.50/- per Sq.Ft., PW.13
succeeding officer after the trap, passed the following order under Ex.P.
34 and directed to pay sum of Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
13.10.Therefore the said amount was paid and document was
received by the PW.4 DW.1 also deposed in the similar line through
marking Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 PW.4 also admitted that he was prepared to
pay the correct stamp duty. But, he did not make the payment. In view of
the above discussion the prosecution has not proved demand either
through unimpeachable oral evidence or through circumstantial and
documentary evidence beyond reasonable doubt
14.Plea and defence and motive
Indian Stamp Act and Tamil Nadu )Registration of documents
under Valuation) Rules, casts a duty on the part of the Sub Registrar to
collect the proper stamp duty on the basis of the guideline value fixed by
the Tamil Nadu Registration Department. As per the evidence of
officials and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 no documents can be
registered for undervaluation. The sub registrar has two options, namely,
he can register the document and make an endorsement about under
Valuation and make reference under Section 47(A) of the Act, to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
competent authority, namely, Deputy Collector (Stamp) or give a chance
to the parties to make payment of the stamp duty as per the guide line
value within a period of 15 days by keeping the document as a pending
document and if the party has not paid the correct stamp duty within a
period of 15 days he can refer the document under Section 47(A) of the
Act.
14.1.In this case, as per the evidence of registration department
officers P.W.9, P.W.13 and guideline value marked as Ex.P25, the
guideline value was fixed as Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft to the lay out of the
property of P.W.2 to the survey number situated in the layout of P.W.2.
He had already registered two documents and during that occasion also
the appellant directed to pay Rs.7.50/- per sq.ft., and the same has been
referred to the Assistant collector (stamps) under Section 47(A) of the
Act to adjudicate the stamp duty. To prove the same, the defence has
marked the documents as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 and also examined DW.1
who was the erstwhile Sub registrar of Perungallur Sub Registrar office
to show that PW.2 presented two documents without making payment of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Rs.7.50/- per Sq.Ft., which were pending under section 47(A) of the Act,
for under valuation. Despite the knowledge of the same, PW.2
clandestinely presented the present document for under valuation with
payment of stamp duty of Rs.5/- per Sq.Ft., Therefore appellant
registered the doucment as pending document by giving the pending
document number P.31/2002 and the appellant asked to pay the
difference of amount by keeping the document as a pending document
and 16.12.2002 was the last date to receive the difference of amount and
complete the registration without making reference under Section 47(A)
of the Act. The District registrar, the superior officer of the appellant
clearly deposed in his evidence, the balance stamp duty amount has to be
paid on 16.12.2002 and the relevant evidence is as follows:
mDkjpf;fg;gl;l Mtzk; fl;lhak; 16.12.2002-f;F xg;gplg;gl;L>
gjpTr;rhd;W gjpTr;rl;lg; gphpT 60-d; fPo; rhd;W Nrh;f;fg;gl;L>
md;Nw MtzjhuUf;F jpUk;g toq;fpapUf;f Ntz;Lk;.
14.2. Without making such payment, on the last date on
16.12.2002 P.W.2 made the complaint and trap was arranged. As per the
evidence of the officers, the trap was completed at 03.00pm. As per the
endorsement made in pencil on the document, she was ready with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
process of completion of the registration by giving document number on
16.12.2002 before the trap. Before making completion of the reference
under section 47(A) of the Act, the trap was conducted and according to
the appellant, she had already, started the process of completion of the
registration by giving documents number on 16.12.2002 which was not
denined by PW.9 in his cross examination and hence, the completion of
the process to refer the documents under Section 47 (A) of the Act has
been thwarted. Therefore the initial version of the appellant that amount
was received as deficit stamp duty and before completion of registration
upon issuing the receipt, the trap team entered and seized the document
is probable.
14.3. P.W.11 admitted that on reading the complaint given by P.W.
2 he could understand that there was some problem in registering the
document but, he has not conducted any enquiry. The investigating
officer also has not conducted any investigation relating to the under
valuation. Therefore, both the trap laying officer/P.W.11 and
investigating officer committed grave lapse in registering the case and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
also filing the final report without conducting proper investigation about
the guideline value to test the testimony of P.W.2 and his credibility
about the presentation of the documents under valuing the property.
14.4.This Court usually will not consider the conduct of P.W.2 to
disbelieve his evidence. But, this case is an exceptional case where the
complainant himself has suppressed the material fact before the vigilance
department about presentation of two earlier documents, with under
valuation at the rate of Rs.5/- per sq.ft and the same has been referred
under section 47 A to make payment of Rs.7.50/- per Sq.Ft.,
14.5. The same was correctly declined by the appellant and registered
the document and kept the document as pending document and before
making reference under section 47(A) of the act, as per the Act within
the prescribed period, PW.2 made a complaint on the last date as if she
demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe in order to wreak vengeance. The said
vengeance was due to the reason that the appellant asked to pay the Rs.
7.50/- per Sq.Ft to register the document. She had already referred two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
documents marked under Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 under section 47(A) of
Stamp Act to pay Rs.7.50/- per Sq.Ft. But he insisted to register
document at the rate of Rs.5.00/- which amounts to “undervaluation”.
Therefore the submission of the appellant that P.W.2 planned to entrap
the appellant in the trap proceedings to force the appellant to his terms
and register the document for undervaluation of Rs.5.00/- per sq.ft. and
attempted to weave a web around the appellant so as get her in to trouble
and victimise her is probable one in the present facts and circumstances
of the case. Therefore, evidence of the trap witness in this case has to be
tested in the touch stone of appreciation of the evidence of “interested
witness”requring independent corroboration before convicting the
accused person as held by the Hon'ble Constition Bench of Supreme
Court in case of State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh reported in AIR 1958
SC 500. This judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present
case. But, there was no corroboration on material aspect of demand and
acceptance and the entire trap proceedings is bristled with mysteries and
suspicion and the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 materially
contradicted with each other and P.W.2 also has not approached the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
authorities disclosing the correct facts and the same was also not
properly verified. In the above circumstances, this court accepts the
argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that since
appellant repeatedly insisted to pay stamp duty at the rate of Rs.7.50/-
per sq.ft. and as she did not yield to accept the request of P.W.2 to
register the document at Rs.5.00/- per sq.ft., he made a false complaint
with false allegation without disclosing pendency of Ex.D1, Ex.D2 and
he is guilty of suppression of material fact. Therefore the prosecution
case that appellant had demanded and directed A2 to receive Rs.5,000/-
for reducing the stamp duty from Rs.22.00/- per Sq.Ft., to Rs.7.50/- is not
only unbelievable story but also seems to be a concocted story to suit his
convenience.
14.6. Apart from that, in similar circumstances the Hon'ble Three
Judges bench of Supreme Court in the case of Meena v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2000) 5 SCC 21 has emphasized about the
requirement of the clear evidence to convict the appellant like person
under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
which reads as follows:
“10. We have bestowed our careful thought on the
submissions made on either side, in the light of the
evidence on record. We are of the view that neither the
quality of the materials produced nor their proper
evaluation could, in this case, be held sufficient to
convince or satisfy the judicial conscience of any
adjudicating authority to record a verdict of guilt, on such
slender evidence.
The corroboration essential in a case like this for what
actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence
and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this
case.”
14.7. Hence this court holds that the prosecution case is shrouded
with mysterious circumstances and prosecution neither proved the
demand nor proved the acceptance of the illegal gratification by the
appellant to fix the stamp duty of Rs.750/- per Sq.Ft., instead of fixing
the rate of Rs.22.00/- per sq.ft. beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the
appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and therefore this court declines
to concur with judgement of the learned trial judge in convicting the
appellant under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and this court finds no material to hold the appellant guilty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
15.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed in the
following terms:
15.1.The judgment passed by the learned chief Judicial Magisrate
cum Special Judge for PC Act cases, Pudukkottai in Spl.C.C.No.2 of
2003 dated 24.07.2018 is hereby set aside.
15.2.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges made in
Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magisrate
cum Special Judge for PC Act cases, Pudukkottai.
15.3.Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the
appellant forthwith.
15.4.Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.
15.05.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
