Madras High Court
James vs The State Rep By on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 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.306 of 2018
James .. Appellant
Vs.
The State rep by,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.12 of 2009) .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in Spl.C.C.No.69 of 2014 dated
28.06.2018, on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act
Cases, Sivagangai and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathyroy
Senior Counsel for
: Ms.T.Seeni Syed Amma
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant who is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2014, on the
file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sivagangai, has filed this appeal
challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on him, by the
impugned judgment dated 28.06.2018.
Sl. Offence under Punishment
No. Section
1 7 of the Prevention Undergo three years of Rigorous
of Corruption Act, Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in
1988 default of payment of fine to undergo further
period of 6 months of Simple Imprisonment
2 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Undergo three years of Rigorous
the Prevention of Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in
Corruption Act, default of payment of fine to undergo further
1988 period of 6 months of Simple Imprisonment
2. P.W.2 is the Defacto-complainant/Kalimuthu Konar. P.W.2 has lot of
agricultural properties in various survey numbers comprised in Patta No. 339,
340 of the revenue village Sowmiyanarayanapuram in his name and his wife
also had properties in the Survey number comprised in Patta No. 891. His wife
meenakshi died prior to the occurrence in the year 2009. After her demise, he has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
been cultivating both the lands. On 24.12.2009 morning 8:30 am he went to the
house of the appellant to submit the crop insurance form in the Kollangudi Co-
operative society for both the lands in his name and in his wife's name, and to
obtain his signature in the prescribed form and produced the “chitta” and
“Adangal” said to have been obtained from the Village Administrative Officer.
The appellant refused to sign the form in his wife name on the ground that the
village administrative officer did not subscribe the lands situated in the name of
his wife in the Adangal and Chitta. He noted the survey number of his property
comprised in Patta No. 339,340 in the crop insurance form and demanded Rs.
200/- to return the same. P.W.2 told that he had not brought any money and
hence the appellant asked to bring Rs. 200/- in the evening. P.W.2 was not
willing to give bribe, and therefore, he approached the respondent Vigilance
Police and made a complaint to P.W.16 (Trap laying officer). P.W.16 upon
verification of the alleagation made in the complaint, registered the case in
Crime No. 12 of 2009 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Thereafter, he called two official witnesses, namely, Kannadasan and Sundaram
from two different government departments. After their arrival, P.W16
demonstrated the significance of the phenolphthalein test with the bribe amount
brought by P.W.2 and instructed P.W.2 to hand over the bribe amount smeared
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
with phenolphthalein powder to the appellant on his demand and directed
Kannadasan to accompany him and watch the transaction taking place between
P.W.2 and the appellant. With this, P.W.16 prepared entrustment mahazar and
further directed P.W. 2 to give signal if the appellant received the bribe amount.
P.W.2 and Kannadasan met the appellant in his house in the evening around 4'o
clock and the appellant reiterated the demand and accepted the bribe amount of
Rs. 200/- and placed the said amount on the table and handover Ex. P5 crop
insurance form with particulars of his land. Therafter, P.W2 gave signal to P.W16
and P.W.16 entered into the house of the appellant and conducted the test in the
hands of the appellant and the color changed and hence P.W.16 enquired about
the receipt of the bribe amount and appellant initially denied the receipt of the
amount and thereafter told that P.W.2 voluntarily gave the amount and he took
out the said amount from the bureau and after recovery, P.W16 recovered the
documents and prepared the recovery mahazar in the presence of the official
witness namely Kannadasan and Sundaram. P.W.16 arrested the appellant and
handed over all the materials to P.W.17 and P.W.17 continued the investigation.
He examined all witnesses, collected all documents and obtained sanction and
filed the final report before the learned Special Judge and the same was taken on
file in Spl.C.C.No.69 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of cases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.
3. The learned Special Judge, after serving the copies under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C., to the appellant, framed necessary charges. The appellant/accused denied
the charges and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he stood trial. To prove the case of
the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.17, exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P.39 and
marked M.O.1 to M.O.4.
4. The Learned Trial Judge questioned the respondent under section 313
Cr.P.C by putting incriminating materials available against him. The appellant
denied the same as false and on the side of appellant, no material documents
were produced and no oral evidence was let in. He filed detailed explanation.
The learned trial Judge, after considering all the materials and documents,
convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2018. Aggrieved
over the same, the appellant preferred the present Criminal Appeal on the
grounds stated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution
case is that the defacto-complainant wanted to get recommendation from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
appellant to register for the Crop insurance in the co-operative society under the
Crop Insurance Scheme. He sought the recommendation for the land standing in
the name of his deceased/wife. There was some dispute regarding change of
patta between the Village Administrative Officer and the appellant and hence
P.W.2 did not submit the application within the time prescribed in the scheme.
Thereafter, he obtained the change of patta in his name and submitted the
application to the appellant for the recommendation under the Crop Insurance
Scheme. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the said
recommendation, the date is mentioned as 23.12.2009 and according to the
prosecution, the said application was returned and signed only on 24.12.2009
and hence there is a serious suspicion over the trap. The learned senior counsel
also would submit that once the scheme got expired, the case of the prosecution
that he submitted the application to the appellant and the same was entertained
by the appellant is not acceptable. Apart from that, the prosecution case is that
the appellant refused to give the recommendation for the land standing in his
wife's name. As on 24.12.2009, patta was not changed in wife's name. In view of
the above fact, the case of the prosecution that the demand of amount for the
recommendation of application for the land of PW.2's wife without mutation of
records is false and hence, a false case was registered and the same is to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
considered along with the past conduct of P.W.2 making complaints against
many persons including the sitting M.L.A. More particularly, he made an
allegation against the sitting M.L.A that the sitting M.L.A has committed theft of
20 goats belonging to him and the same was closed as mistake of fact. He also
made numerous complaints against several persons. Therefore, his evidence has
to be viewed with suspicion. Apart from that, one official witness died and the
other official witness, namely, P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case fully.
In view of the fact that P.W.3/independent witness was declared hostile the
prosecution case that the demand and acceptance has been proved cannot be
accepted. The same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge.
6. According to the Crop Insurance Scheme, the appellant is not the
competent person to entertain any crop insurance. Apart from that, he refused to
favour for the wife's land since patta was not transferred in the name of his wife.
The appellant rightly refused to sign the form. Therefore, the case of the
prosecution is false. The learned trial Judge failed to consider the document filed
by the prosecution document which itself shows that the insurance coverage
period was already over and the application was accepted as a special case as per
the communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer after the trap. In this case,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
it is seen from the records, on the date of the trap, the scheme has already lapsed
and there was no order passed by the competent officer to accept his form. In
such an event, the case of the prosecution that he demanded money for the land
standing in his wife's name is not acceptable one. Apart from that, the learned
senior counsel submitted that when the demand and acceptance is not proved in
accordance with law the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Further,
the recovery of the amount from his custody is properly explained and same was
not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. Mere recovery of amount is
not an offence, when the demand and acceptance was not legally proved. The
learned counsel, further submitted that P.W.2 has axe to grind with the appellant
and he was falsely implicated in this case. In view of the above circumstances,
the learned counsel seeks acquittal and he relied the following precedents:
1.Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras reported in AIR
1957 SC 614
2.Meena (SMT) vs. State of Maharastra reported in
(2000) 5 SCC 21
3.Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023
SCC Online 320
7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that P.W.3 official
witness is declared hostile only in part and not wholly. In the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
circumstances, the argument of the learned Senior counsel deserves to be
rejected. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that when the
PW.2's document, namely, Ex.P5 was in the custody of the appellant and the
appellant also admitted that he received the form on the date of the occurrence
and as the amount also was recovered from the house of the accused, the
presumption under Section 20 of the Act comes into play. Therefore, the
prosecution clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The minor
contradictions relating to some aspects is immaterial, when the examination of
the witnesses has been done after number of years. Apart from that, it is true that
the scheme expired on the date of trap but the entertainment of the application by
the appellant itself is a strong circumstance to presume the demand and
acceptance. If the scheme had expired, the appellant, in all fairness should have
returned the application to P.W.2. There was some dispute relating to the
mutation of records in the name of wife which is not material, when the
prosecution clearly proved the demand and acceptance of the amount. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that P.W.2 has given cogent
evidence about the demand and acceptance. Therefore in all aspects, the
prosecution clearly proved the demand and acceptance and the same was
properly considered by the learned trial Judge and hence, he seeks to dismiss the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
appeal.
8. This Court considered the rival submission 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. Now the question to be decided in this case is whether the conviction
and sentence passed against the appellant by the Trial Court, is in accordance
with law?
10. He is the owner of the properties comprising in various survey
numbers in patta Nos.339 and 334. His wife's patta number is 891. According to
the charge, the appellant refused to sign the form submitted by P.W.2 relating to
his wife's property, which reads as follows:
“Gfhh;jhuh; fhspKj;J nfhy;yq;Fbapy; jd; ngahpy;
cs;s eQ;ir epyj;jpYk; kw;Wk; jd; kidtp ngahpy;
cs;s eQ;ir epyj;jpYk; tptrhak; nra;Js;sjhy;
mjw;fhd Njrpa Ntshz; gaph; fhg;gPl;Lj;jpl;lj;jpd;gb
nfhy;yq;Fb $l;LwT nrhirl;bapy; gjpT nra;tjw;fhf
10(1) rpl;lh> Ntshz; gaph; fhg;gPl;L ghuk; kw;Wk; mlq;fy;
Mfpatw;wpy; ifnaOj;J thq;Ftjw;fhf nfhy;yq;Fb
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
gFjpf;fhd fhisahh;Nfhtpy; cjtp Ntshz;ik
mYtyuhf cs;s vjphpahfpa ck;ik 24.12.2009-Mk;
Njjp fhiy rkhh; 8.30 kzpastpy; ehl;lurd;Nfhl;ilapy;
cs;s ckJ tPl;by; te;J ghh;j;J gbtq;fspy;
ifnaOj;J Nfl;lNghJ vjphpahfpa ePH; Gfhh;jhuhpd;
ngahpy; cs;s epyj;jpw;F kl;Lk; ifnaOj;J Nghl;Ls;sPh;.
Gfhh;jhuhpd; kidtp ngahpy; cs;s epyj;jpw;F fl;lhak;
&.200 ju Ntz;Lk; vd;W Nfl;Ls;sPh;.
10.1. The allegation of PW.2 as per Ex.P2 is as follows:
“vdJ ghuq;fis thq;fp ghh;j;J (ehd; nfhLj;j
vy;yhtw;iwAk;) vd; kidtp ngahpy; cs;s epyj;jpw;fhd
mlq;fspy; V.A.O. ehd; tptrhak; nra;Js;s tptuj;ij
vOjhjpUe;jjpdhy; mjpy; ifnahg;gkpltpy;iy vd;W
nrhy;yp vdJ ngaUf;fhd rhFgb tpguj;ij me;jg;
ghuj;jpy; vOjp ifnaOj;Jg; Nghl;L tpl;L vd;dplk; &gha;
200/- (,UE}W &gha;) Nfl;lhh;. ehd; jaq;fp epd;Nwd;.
vy;NyhplKk; thq;FtJ Nghy; jhd; Nfl;fpNwd; vd;whh;. ,g;g
ehd; gzk; nfhz;L tutpy;iy vOjpAs;sijf; nfhLq;f
nrhi]l;bapy; Ngha; gjpe;J tpl;L Ngha; gzk; vLj;J te;J
jUtjhfr; nrhd;Ndd;. mij mth; Vw;Wf;nfhs;shky; gzk;
&.200/- nfhLj;jhy;jhd; jUNtd; vd;W fz;bg;ghfr;
nrhy;yptpl;lhh;. tPl;bw;F Ngha; gzk; vLj;J tuZk; vd;W
Nfl;Nld;. ,d;W ehd; yPtpy; jhd; tPl;bypUf;fpNwd;.
rhaq;fhyj;jpw;Fs; gzj;ijf; nfhz;L te;J nfhLj;Jtpl;L
ghuj;ij thq;fpl;L Ngha; nrhi]l;bapy; gjpT gz;Zq;fs;
vd;W jpU.N[k;]; nrhd;dhh;fs;. mtUf;F yQ;rk; nfhLf;f
vdf;F tpUg;gkpy;iy. vd;dplk; mth; yQ;rkhff; Nfl;l
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
gzk; &.200/- ,UE}W nfhz;L te;Js;Nsd;. cjtp
Ntshz;ik mYtyh; jpU.N[k;]; mth;fs; kPJ eltbf;if
vLf;FkhW Nfl;Lf; nfhs;fpNwd”;.
10.2. The evidence of PW.2 also is in similar line of the allegation made
in the complaint which reads as follows:
“me;j ghuq;fis thq;fp ghh;j;J tpl;L vdJ kidtp
ngahpy; cs;s 20 nrz;l; eQ;ir epyj;jpy; ehd; tptrhak;
nra;j tptuj;ij tp.v.X. mlq;fspy; vOjhky; ,Ue;jjhy;
mjpy; ifnahg;gk; ,ltpy;iy. VdJ ngaUf;Fhpa rhFgb
tptuj;ij gl;lh vz;.399> 340 Mfpatw;iw vOjp ifnaOj;J
Nghl;L tpl;L vd;dplk; &.200/- yQ;rkhf Nfl;lhh;. ehd; jaq;fp
epd;Nwd;. mjw;F vjphp ehd; vy;NyhhplKk; thq;FtJ Nghy;
jhd; cd;dplKk; Nfl;fpNwd;> nfhL vd;W Nfl;lhh;. ehd;
ghuj;ij jhUq;fs;> nrhirl;bapy; Ngha; gjpe;j gpwF gzk;
vLj;J te;J jUtjhfr; nrhd;Ndd;. Mjw;F vjphp
xj;Jf;nfhs;stpy;iy. gzk; &.200/- nfhLj;jhy;jhd; jUNtd;
vd;W fz;bg;ghf nrhy;yptpl;lhh;. NkYk; yPtpy; jhd;
tPl;by; ,Ug;gjhfTk;> rhaq;fhyj;jpw;Fs; gzj;ijf; nfhz;L
te;J nfhLj;Jtpl;L ghuj;ij thq;fp nfhz;L Ngha;
nrhirl;bapy; gjpT nra;J nfhs;Sq;fs; vd;W vjphp nrhd;dhh;.
vdf;F vjphpf;F yQ;rk; nfhLj;J ghuj;ij thq;f
tpUg;gk; ,y;iy”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
10.3. The final report and sanction order also are in similar line.
“(i) Whereas it is reported that the complainant tr.Kalimuthu
Konar a farmer, met Tr.P.James, Assistant Agricultural Officer at his
residence on 24.12.2009 at about 8.30 hrs., produced the Natonal
Crop Insurance Proposal Form and connected documents for getting
the details of crops and remarks of the Assistant Agricultural Officer
for registering in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society under
the National Crop Insurance Scheme. At that time, he demanded Rs.
200/- for returning and furnishing the crop details in the proposal
form of National Crop Insurance Scheme for registering in Primary
Agricultural Co-Operative Society.
ii) Whereas it is further reported that on the same day
24.12.2009 at about 16.40 hrs., when the complaint Tr.Kalimuthu
Konar met Tr.P.James, Assistant Agricultural officer along with
official witness Tr.Kannadasan at his residence at Door No.5/7, Lal
Bahadur Sastri Street, Nattarasankottai, the Assistant Agricultural
Officer reiterated his earlier demanded, received tainted money of
Rs.200/-, kept the same in wooden bureau along with an invitation
cover in his bedroom and returned the proposal form to Tr.Kalimuthu
Konar.
iii). Whereas it is further reported that Tr.P.James being a
public servant on 24.12.2009 at about 8.30 hrs., at his residence,
demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant Tr.Kalimutu Konar to
return with crop details in the national Crop Insurance Proposal
Form for registering in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
as a motive or reward and as gratification other than legal
remuneration and thereby he has committed an offence punishable
U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”
10.4.From the sanction accorded by PW.1 it is clear that there is no sanction
to prosecute the appellant for the allegation framed in the charge that appellant
demanded bribe of Rs.200/- to sign the Crop Insurance Form to the lands
standing in the name of deceased wife of PW.2. The evidence of PW.2 and the
allegation in the final report and the Investigating Officer's evidence are all
relating to the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount for signing Crop
Insurance Form relating to the lands standing in the name of PW.2 and there is
no evidence relating to the lands standing in the name of the deceased wife of
PW.2 comprised in Patta No.891. Therefore, the Learned Trial Judge overlooked
the allegation made in the final report and the charges framed which are mutually
contradictory. The Learned Trial judge also failed to see that the charges framed
by court that appellant demanded bribe to sign the Crop Insurance Form in the
name of PW.2's wife is without evidence. Therefore, this Court considered this
extraordinary circumstance that charge is not supported by the evidence. It is
settled principle that the court can frame the charge upon the perusal of the final
report. But, Court has no jurisdiction to pass conviction without any evidence to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
prove the allegation found in the charges framed by the court.
11. To prove the demand, prosecution examined Defacto-complainant PW.
2 and relied it as the only circumstance that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs.
200/- from PW.2 in the morning on the date of the trap i.e. on 24.12.2009. At the
time of the trap in the evening of 24.12.2009, the appellant reiterated the demand
in the presence of the “deceased official witness Kannadasan”. Due to the death
of Kannadasan, the only available evidence to prove the demand is PW.2 and
his evidence has to be tested in the same way as “interested witnesses” 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 and reiterated by the
Hon'ble Two Judges Bench of Supreme Court in various cases including Khilli
Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1985(1) SCC 28 which reads as follows:
“3. . It is also true that in the case' of State of Bihar v. Basawan
Singh [1959 SCR 195 : AIR 1958 SC 500 : 1958 Cri LJ 979] a
five-Judge Bench has laid down that if any of the witnesses are
accomplices, their evidence is admissible in law but the Judge
should indicate in his judgment that he had the Rule of caution in
mind — namely, the danger of convicting the accused on the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice — and give reasons
for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration; if,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
however, the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan
or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the
trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other
interested evidence is tested, and in a proper case, the Court may
look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused
person.
11.1 As per the oral evidence let in by the prosecution and exhibited
documents, the appellant has to give the Crop Insurance Form on the basis of the
Adangal issued by the Revenue Department. PW.2 deposed that he obtained
Adangal from Village Administrative Officer on 23.07.2009 and met the
appellant in his house in the morning of 24.07.2009. The prosecution witness
namely Village Administrative Officer PW.7 deposed that he had not issued
Adangal to PW.2. PW.7 deposed that on 14.12.2009, PW.2 met the appellant in
his office at 10.30 AM and requested to furnish Adangal. At that time, PW.7 was
called to attend the collector's meeting at Tahsildar Office. Hence, he asked PW.
2 to come in the afternoon of 14.12.2009 but PW.2 prevented him from
proceeding towards the collector's office to attend the meeting and scolded him
and scuffle took place between them. Therefore, PW.7 made a complaint against
him and thereafter PW.7 never gave the Adangal. In view of the above factual
circumstances, the deposition of PW.2 that he obtained the adangal from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
village Administrative Officer is false. Therefore, PW.2's deposition that he met
the appellant with the adangal furnished by the Village Administrative Officer is
not supported by the evidence of PW.7. PW.5, the then Tahsildar deposed that
he directed the Revenue Inspector namely Sathyanarayanan, higher officer of
PW.7 to get the Chitta and Adangal from PW.7 and furnish to PW.2 and submit
the report. As per the direction, the said Revenue Inspector furnished Adangal
to PW.2 on 23.12.2009. In the said Adangal also, there was no reference about
the lands of PW.2's wife since she died prior to 2009. When wife of PW.2 passed
away, as per the Revenue procedure, P.W. 2 has to mutate the revenue records in
the name of the legal heirs of his wife. But, no such records were produced by
PW.2. Therefore, the appellant rightly refused to sign the Crop Insurance Form
as stated in the complaint. It is also not legally permissable to sign the Crop
Insurance Form in the name of the deceased person without any reference about
the lands of the deceased wife of PW.2 in the “Adangal”. No documentary
evidence was adduced before the Court below to show the “Adangal” in the
name of the deceased wife of P.W.2 covering the Property in Patta No.891.
Further, the past conduct of P.W.2 making complaints against all officials
including the sitting M.L.A and the VAO has to be considered to test the
veracity of testimony of P.W.2. He made an allegation against the sitting M.L.A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
that the sitting M.L.A has committed theft of 20 goats belonging to him and the
same was closed as mistake of fact. Apart from that, the Village Administrative
Officer, specifically deposed that he made a complaint against P.W.2 for his
unruly behaviour with him by denigrating his caste name to make him sign the
form under Ex.P.5. P.W.2/Thiru.Kalimuthu Konar owes allegiance to various
political parties and rubbing shoulders with a Central Minister. Therefore, P.W.2
is a trouble monger and the evidence adduced before the Court shows that he has
the habit of making complaints against the officials to make them dance to his
tunes. Under the said special circumstances, the evidence of PW.2 requires
corroboration and the same has been fortified by the Hon'ble Three Judges
bench of Supreme Court in Para 10 in the case of Meena v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2000) 5 SCC 21.
“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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
12. But, no corroborative evidence is available to prove the demand, said
to have been made in the morning on the date of the trap I.e., on 24.12.2009.
The specific plea of the appellant is that he never met PW.2 in the morning as
deposed by him and the said sum and substance of the said pleading of the
appellant finds place in the course of the explanation U/s.313 Cr.P.C, which is as
follows:
m.rh.2-aplk; ehd; ghuk; Nfl;ftpy;iy. ehd; fhiy
Neuj;jpy; mq;F ,y;iy.
13. The said plea was supported by the material on record. PW.8 deposed
that the appellant was deputed to do some other work in another village and the
relevant document namely attendance register was also marked as Ex.P.25 &
Ex.P.26 and the said documents reveal that he was deputed to work in the village
called Veeramuthupatty.
“fle;j 24.12.2009-k; Njjp vjphp fsg;gzpf;Fr;
nrd;wjhfj;jhd; vq;fs; Mtzq;fspy; cs;sJ. Fsg;gzpf;Fr;
nry;gth;fs; fhiy 10.00 kzp Kjy; khiy 5.00 kzp tiu
mYtyj;jpw;F nry;tJ Nghy; my;yhky; mjpfhiyapNyNa
gzpf;Fr; nrd;W tpLthh;fs;. md;iwa jpdk; vjphp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
tPuKj;Jg;l;bf;F fsg;gzpf;Fr; nrd;Ws;sjhf Mtzq;fspy;
cs;sJ.”
14. If the evidence of PW.7 and the contents of Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26 is
taken into account the case of the appellant that he was not present in the
morning is probable. Therefore, the meeting of PW.2 with the appellant in the
appellant's house in the morning on the date of the trap i.e., 24.12.2009 is
doubtful. Hence, the case of the prosecution that appellant demanded bribe
amount from PW.2 in the morning on 24.12.2009 is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt since there is no corroborative evidence for the same.
15. Further, reiteration of demand of Rs.200/- by the appellant to give the
Crop Insurance Form in the name of PW.2's wife at the time of trap on
24.12.2009 also could not be established since the official witness Kannadasan
passed away. The evidence of PW.2 does not inspire confidence who had
approached the appellant to give the Crop Insurance Form in the name of dead
person without including the Survey number of dead person's land in the
Adangal and other revenue records. Hence, the case of the prosecution that there
was a reiteration of demand at the time of the trap as claimed by PW.2 is without
corroborative evidence and the same cannot be accepted. The specific case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
the appellant during the trap proceedings and under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he
never demanded any bribe and obtained bribe amount from P.W.2. He
specifically pleaded during u/s.313 CrPC proceedings that he never demanded
any amount in the afternoon on the date of trap and the same is as follows:
“kjpak; m.rh.2 te;j NghJ ehd; gzk; Nfl;ftpy;iy.”
16. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the appellant demanded
bribe for PW.2's wife's Crop Insurance whereas reading the following portion of
the evidence of PW.2 would show that the appellant never demanded bribe to
sign the Crop Insurance Form in the name of deceased wife of PW.2:
“vdJ ngaUf;Fhpa rhFgb tptuj;ij gl;lh vz;.399> 340
Mfpatw;iw vOjp ifnaOj;J Nghl;L tpl;L vd;dplk; &.200/-
yQ;rkhf Nfl;lhh;. ehd; jaq;fp epd;Nwd;. mjw;F vjphp ehd;
vy;NyhplKk; thq;FtJ Nghy; jhd; cd;dplKk; Nfl;fpNwd;>
nfhL vd;W Nfl;lhh;. ehd; ghuj;ij jhUq;fs;> nrhirl;bapy;
Ngha; gjpe;j gpwF gzk; vLj;J te;J jUtjhfr; nrhd;Ndd;.
Mjw;F vjphp xj;Jf;nfhs;stpy;iy. gzk; &.200/-
nfhLj;jhy;jhd; jUNtd; vd;W fz;bg;ghf nrhy;yptpl;lhh;.
NkYk; yPtpy; jhd; tPl;by; ,Ug;gjhfTk;> rhaq;fhyj;jpw;Fs;
gzj;ijf; nfhz;L te;J nfhLj;Jtpl;L ghuj;ij thq;fp
nfhz;L Ngha; nrhirl;bapy; gjpT nra;J nfhs;Sq;fs; vd;W
vjphp nrhd;dhh;.
“ehd; vjphpaplk; fhiyapy; nfhLj;jpUe;j gaph; fhg;gPl;L
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
jpl;lj;jpw;fhd G+h;j;jp nra;ag;gl;l ghuj;ij Nfl;Nld;. Mjw;F
vjphp ehd; fhiyapy; nrhd;dgb &.200/- nfhz;L
te;jpUf;fpwhah vd;W Nfl;lhh;. muR rhl;rp Re;juj;jhy; vd;
rl;lrigapy; itf;fg;gl;l gTlh; jltg;gl;l gzk; &.200/-ia
vjphpaplk; nfhLj;Njd;. Vjphp gzj;ij thq;fpaTld; gaph;
fhg;gPl;L ghuk;> 10(1) rpl;lh> mlq;fiy vd;dplk; nfhLj;jhh;.”
Therefore, the alleged demand to sign the Crop insurance form in the name of
deceased wife is without any substance.
17. The said Crop insurance form in the name of deceased wife also was
not recovered in the house of the appellant and the official witness PW.3 was
declared hostile and he specifically stated as follows:
“N[k;]; tPl;bd; cs;Ns ele;j tptuk; vdf;F njhpahJ.”
“ifg;gw;Wjy;; kf[hpy; vd;d tptuq;fs; vOjg;gl;bUf;fpwJ
vd;gJ vdf;F njhpahJ. vd;ndd;d Mtzq;fs;> vj;jid
Mtzq;fs; vjphp tPl;by; ,Ue;J ifg;gw;wpdhh;fs; vd;gJ
vdf;F njhpahJ.”
From the above evidence of the trap witness, the recovery of the document is not
proved. In the recovery mahazar also, there is no reference about the recovery of
the Crop Insurance form in the name of the deceased wife of PW.2 and the same
is clear from the following contents of the Recovery Mahazar:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
“vjphpahy; ,d;W vOjg;gl;L 23.12.2009 vd Kd; Njjpapl;L
thjpf;F nfhLf;fg;gl;l gaph; fhg;gPl;L Kd;nkhopT gbtKk;;
mj;Jld;> gl;lh vz;.339> 340> 891-f;fhd 12.11.09 Njjpapl;l 10(1)
efy;fs; %d;W kw;Wk; fpuhk eph;thf mytyh; nfhy;yq;Fbapy;
23.12.2009-y; nfhLf;fg;gl;l mlq;fy; efy; ,uz;L. gl;lh vz;.
339> 340-f;fhd mlq;fy; efypy; fUg;G ikapdhy; nkhj;jk;
6-,dq;fshf vOjpapUe;jJ Fwpj;J vjphpaplk; Nfl;ljpy; jhd;
rhpghh;g;jw;fhf vOjpajhf njhptpj;jhh;.
18. So, there was no recovery of Ex.P.21 at the time of the preparation of
the recovery mahazar and PW.16 traplaying officer also not disclosed about the
recovery of Ex.P.21 at the time of preparation of the recovery mahazar.
Therefore, the prosecution case that the appellant demanded and accepted the
bribe amount to sign the Crop Insurance Form containing the survey number of
PW.2's deceased wife is not proved either through oral evidence or documentary
evidence.
19. Since the official witness who accompanied PW.2 died, to prove the
acceptance of the illegal gratification”, the prosecution mainly relied on the
evidence of P.W.2. The specific case of the appellant both during the recovery
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
proceedings and under Section 313 CrPC proceedings is that he never received
the bribe amount. He was not aware of the planting of the bribe amount on the
table. Later, he found the amount and he placed the said amount in his bureau
believing that amount was his personal amount and the said explanation is as
follows:
mth; ehd; ghuk; vOjpf; nfhz;bUe;jNghJ vd; Nlgpypy;
&gha; itj;j tpguk; vdf;F njhpahJ. ehd; ntspNa
Nghtjw;fhf tz;b rhtpia vLf;Fk;NghJ jhd; gzj;ij
ghh;jN
; jd;. mJ vd; gzk; vd;W epidj;J vg;NghJk; gzk;
itg;gJ Nghy; buhaupy; itj;Njd;. ehd; yQ;r gzk; Nfl;fTk;
,y;iy> gzk; thq;fTk; ,y;iy NghyP]; nrhy;yp ehd;
buhaypUe;J vd; gzk; vd;W epidj;J vLj;Jf;nfhLj;Njd;.
m.rh.2 vd;dplk; Vw;nfdNt jfuhW nra;Js;shh;. ngha; tof;F
ngha; rhl;rpak;.
20. This Court is unable to accept the sole testimony of PW.2 to hold that
the appellant had received the illegal gratification, without any corroborative
evidence more particularly in the backdrop of P.W.2 requesting to sign the Crop
Insurance Form for the lands of the deceased wife of PW.2 comprised in Patta
No.891 without any reference of the lands in the Adangal allegedly issued by
the revenue department.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
21.The claim of the appellant that a false case was registered is to be
considered along with the past conduct of P.W.2 making complaints against
many persons including the sitting M.L.A and the said plea of suspicious
conduct of PW.2 seems to be acceptable. In this case, Crop Insurance Form in
the name of the wife after her death is not legally permissable and hence the case
of the prosecution that the appellant demanded Rs.200/- to sign the Crop
Insurance Form covering the properties of deceased wife of PW.2 is not
acceptable.
22.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that two other
circumstances namely the recovery of the xerox copy of the unfilled Crop
Insurance Form from the custody of the appellant, handling of the Crop
Insurance Form of PW.2 on the basis of the Chitta, Adangal produced by PW.2
by filling the xerox copy of the Crop Insurance form and handing it over to
PW2 in the evening which are all an incriminating circumstances which were
not explained by the appellant. This Court is unable to appreciate the said
contention.
22.1. As per the evidence of the PW.8 and other department witnesses,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
due to the deficiency of the Crop Insurance Form, it is permissable to keep the
xerox copy of the Crop Insurance Form. The evidence of PW.8 and PW.14 are as
follows:
PW.8 PW.14
“,j;jpl;lj;jpy; gjpT nra;a gaph; fhg;gpl;bw;fhf Kd;nkhopT
tptrhapfSf;fhd gaph; fhg;gPl;L gbtk; Ntshz;ik Jiw
Kd;nkhopT gbtq;fs; Fwpg;gpl;l mYtyfq;fspy; toq;fpdhh;fs;.
msNt vq;fSf;F toq;fg;gl;bUe;jJ. mJ tptrhapfspd;
VdNt Njitf;Nfw;g n[uhf;]; vLj;J vz;zpf;iff;F NghJkhd
gad;gLj;jTk;> Nkw;gb gbtj;jpid G msT ,y;yhky; ,Ue;jjhy;
+h;j;jp nra;J> tptrhapfSf;F cjtp Ntshz;ik mYtyh;fs;
toq;fplTk; cjtp Ntshz;ik efy;fs; vLj;J
mYtyh;fSf;F gad;gLj;jpdhh;fs;.
mwpTWj;jg;gl;bUe;jJ.
Therefore, keeping the unfilled xerox copy of Crop Insurance form and
using one such form to give to PW.2 cannot be taken as an incriminating
circumstance.
22.3 The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the
appellant met PW.2 in his house and he filled the Crop Insurance Form after the
period of expiry to submit the application is another incriminating circumstance
to presume the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
22.4 According to PW.14 Assistant Director of the appellant's department,
the period to submit the application was extended up to 30.12.2009. PW.15
officer from the Central Co-operative Bank deposed that the last date to submit
the application was 31.12.2009 in the case of loanee. There was no evidence to
prove that PW.2 was a loanee of the society. Therefore, this Court declines to
accept the contention of the Public Prosecutor in this aspect for the reason that
before expiry of the date, the appellant addressed the grievance of PW.2 and
filled the Crop Insurance Form and recommended him. Therefore, no evidence is
available against the appellant that he demanded bribe for discharge of his lawful
duty.
23. Mere recovery of currency notes of two hundred rupees notes without
proof of acceptance cannot be held against the appellant to draw presumption
under Section 20 of the Act and the same has been fortified by the Hon'ble Three
Judges bench in Paragraph No.11 in the case of Meena (SMT) vs State of
Maharastra reported in (2000) 5 SCC 21
“11. The learned Judge in the High Court seems to have
mechanically affixed his approval to the findings recorded by the
trial Judge by profusely extracting such findings. Mere recovery of
the currency note of Rs 20 denomination, and that too lying on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
pad on the table, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient
proof of the acceptance of the bribe, in the peculiar circumstances
of this case which lend also credence to the case of the appellant
that it fell on the table in the process of the appellant pushing it
away with her hands when attempted to be thrust into her hands by
PW 1. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that
the appellant could have also come into contact with the currency
note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be
considered to be of any relevance to prove that the appellant really
accepted the bribe amount. With such perfunctory nature of
materials and the prevaricating type of evidence of PW 1 and PW 3,
who seem to have a strong prejudice against the appellant, it would
be not only unsafe but dangerous to rest conviction upon their
testimony. PW 1, if really was keen on getting the copy of the record
urgently, could have made an urgent application to have them
delivered within 3 days instead of making an ordinary application
and going on such an errand, which makes it even reasonable to
assume that the trio of PW 1, PW 3 and Jagdish Bokade were
attempting to weave a web around the appellant to somehow get her
into trouble and victimise her.”
and in Paragraph No.8 in the case of B. Jayaraj vs State of
A.P reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55:
“8. ...Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from
the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the
offence under Section 7.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
and in Para 18 in the case of Rajesh Gupta v. State reported in
(2022) 20 SCC 793
“18. For an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand
of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove the guilt. Mere
recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under
Section 7 of the PC Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it
to be a bribe. The proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can
follow only if there is proof of demand.”
24. The other circumstance of recovery of the amount from the custody of
the appellant is concerned, the evidence of PW.2 that the appellant received the
bribe amount has not been corroborated by any other evidence. In the said
circumstance, the explanation of the appellant during section 313 CrPC
proceedings and his immediate reply that he never received the amount is to be
considered in favour of the appellant. Mere recovery of the amount is not a
circumstance to convict the appellant U/s.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act without proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount.
Therefore, this court finds no material to convict the appellant U/s.7, 13(23) r/w
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
25.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed in the following
terms:
25.1.The judgment passed by the learned Judge, Special Court for
Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases, Sivagangai in Spl.C.C.No.69 of 2014 dated
28.06.2018 is hereby set aside.
25.2.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges in Spl.C.C.No.69 of
2014, on the file of the learned Judge, Special Court for Prevention of
Corruption Act, Cases, Sivagangai.
25.3.Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant
forthwith.
25.4.Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand terminated.
15.05.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
To
1. The Special Court for Trial of Cases
under Prevention of Corruption Act,
Sivagangai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Record Section (Criminal)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
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 )
