Madras High Court
M.Jeyalakshmi vs State Rep. By on 15 May, 2025
CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 18.12.2024
Pronounced on : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018
V.Malaichamy (Died)
M.Jeyalakshmi .. Appellant
(As per order of this Court dated 18.12.2019, in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.11159
of 2019 in Crl.A.(MD).No.279 of 2018 the appellant was impleaded)
Vs.
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Madurai .. Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of
Cr.P.C., to set-aside the judgment delivered by the learned Special Judge
for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Madurai in Special Case No.70 of 2011 and acquit the appellant/accused.
For Appellant : Mr.Ramasundarvijayaraj
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page No. 1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The accused in the Special Case.No.70 of 2011 on the file of the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court/Special Judge, Madurai, filed this
appeal challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial
Judge. The learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence
under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo one year simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, one month simple imprisonment for the
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to
undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3000/- in default,
to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section
13(1)(d) r/w13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for his
demand and acceptance of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.2 to sign the form for
obtaining marriage assistance fund for his sister namely, Chitra's marriage
under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammayar, Memorial Marriage
Assistance Scheme.
During the pendency of this Criminal Appeal, the appellant died.
Therefore, wife of the appellant is contesting this appeal to continue the
appeal of the deceased appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
2. Case of the prosecution:
P.W.2 is the defacto complainant, who is the brother of one Chitra.
The appellant/Malaichamy was working as Village Administrative Officer,
Pulipatti Village and also in-charge of the Kidaripatti Village. Since P.W.2
belongs to Kidaripatti Village, he made an application to the appellant on
22.01.2010 to obtain marriage assistance fund for his sister's marriage
under the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammayar, Memorial Marriage
Assistance Scheme. At that time, the appellant demanded a sum of
Rs.1,500/- as bribe and received a sum of Rs.100/- as advance and asked
him to come and meet him with bribe amount. On 25.01.2010, P.W.2 made
a complaint before the Vigilance Department. P.W.12/Trap Laying Officer
received the complaint and after enquiry, he registered a case in Crime No.
4 of 2010 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, and called two official witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.14 and
demonstrated the phenolphthalein test on the amount brought by P.W2.
After demonstration of the phenolphthalein test, P.W.12 instructed P.W.2 to
meet the Village Administrative Officer and on his demand he was directed
to hand over the bribe amount. P.W.3 was directed to go along with P.W.2
and watch the transaction taking place between them. P.W.2 and P.W.3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
reached the Village Administration Office and since he was absent, he went
to Melur Taluk office. In that place, the appellant was present and the
appellant reiterated the demand and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.
1,400/- and returned a sum of Rs.500/- to P.W.2. P.W.2 thereafter, gave the
signal to P.W.12 and his officers. On receipt of the signal, P.W.12 and his
team of officer approached the appellant office and they conducted
phenolphthalein test in the hands of the appellant and the same turned
pink in colour and thereafter, P.W.12 enquired about the receipt of the bribe
amount. The appellant pretented that he did not receive and thereafter,
admitted the receipt of the bribe amount. Hence, the amount was recovered
from the shirt pocket of the appellant and the same was subjected to
phenolphthalein test and the same also turn pink in color. P.W.12 arrested
the appellant and prepared the recovery mahazar in the presence of P.W.4,
who is the staff of the Taluk Office, Melur and also P.W.4 who was the
witness for the recovery proceedings and thereafter he arrested the accused
and produced him before the Special Court and collected all the documents
relating to the marriage scheme fund. After completing all the formalities,
he also recovered the documents which were in the custody of the accused
officer/appellant relating to P.W2. After that he arrested the accused and
the subsequent investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
and he collected all the documents and final report was filed before the
Special Court.
3.The learned Special Judge took the same on file in Spl.C.C.No.70
of 2011. The learned Special Judge framed the necessary charges. After
framing of charges, the learned Special Judge questioned the appellant and
he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
4.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W14
and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and marked M.O1 to M.O5. The learned
trial Judge questioned the appellant by putting the incriminating materials
available against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and
documents under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same as false and filed
a written explanation and examined DW1 on his side and marked Ex.D1 to
Ex.D3. The learned trial Judge after considering entire evidence on record
convicted the appellant as stated above, vide impugned judgment.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
amount was handed over to the appellant is not correct. Due to the motive
between one of the village assistant, namely, Pandi, a false case was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
registered. P.W.2 was the member of a political party. Due to the
vengeance, Pandi and P.W.2 conspired together and made a false compliant
and thrust the trap amount in the pocket of the deceased accused and the
same was probablised through the circumstances of the case and the same
was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned
counsel also submitted that the involvement of the appellant was not
proved in accordance with law and also the acceptance of the money was
not proved through legal evidence. Without any evidence to the foundation
facts, namely, demand and acceptance the presumption under Section 20 of
the Act, does not arise. The learned counsel also argued that the defence
witness D.W.1 was examined to show the topography of the appellant
place which was not in consonance with the evidence of the Trap Laying
Officer, P.W.12, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The same was not properly considered by
the learned trial Judge. He also submitted that the defence witness also was
not given due importance. The learned counsel also submitted that now the
appellant has died and his wife is prosecuting the appeal. Without
obtaining any pensionary benefit, her entire family has ruined and in view
of the above inherent improbability, she seeks to set aside the conviction
and sentence passed against him.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions and on
going through the impugned judgment and the records submitted that the
demand and acceptance was clearly proved through the evidence of P.W.2,
P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.14. Apart from the evidence of P.W.12/TLO. The
same was properly considered by the learned trial Judge and proper
conviction was passed against the deceased appellant. The appellant in 313
Cr.P.C., proceeding gave a detailed submission, in which he admitted that
the meeting of the complainant/P.W.2 on 25.01.2010 as mentioned by the
prosecution. His only defence is that the amount was thrust in his shirt
pocket by P.W.2 with active collusion with one Pandi, Village Assistant.
The Village Assistance had consumed liquor in the appellant's office and
the same was questioned by him and threatened to take action against him.
Hence, Pandi got annoyed. Therefore he and P.W.2 joined together and
enacted a drama about the receipt of the bribe amount. The said defence is
not correct. According to the prosecution, there was no record was
produced by the defence to show that the relationship between Pandi and
P.W.2. The evidence of an independent official witness P.W.3, P.W.4 and
P.W. 14, who are the immediate superior of the deceased appellant
correctly deposed about the recovery of the bribe amount from the pocket
of the deceased appellant and their evidence are cogent and trustworthy.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks to confirm the
conviction and sentence imposed against him.
7.This court considered the rival submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials
available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.
8. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the prosecution
has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the deceased
appellant to substantiate the conviction and sentence imposed by the
learned trial Judge?
9. P.W.2 submitted the application to the deceased appellant on
22.01.2010 to obtain marriage benefit fund to his sister's marriage
proposed to be held on 27.01.2010. As per the Moovalur Ramamirtham
Ammaiyar Memorial Scheme, amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to the
destitute women. When he submitted the application, the deceased
appellant made a demand of Rs.1,500/- and also demanded Rs.100/- as
advance. P.W.2 further deposed that on 25.01.2010 he gave the complaint
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
about the demand of Rs.1,400/- for issuing the nativity certificate and other
necessary certificate to claim the amount under the said scheme to obtain
the marriage relief fund. On 25.01.2010, he met the appellant/deceased.
The appellant reiterated the demand and received the bribe amount. P.W.3
also corroboratively deposed about the said occurrence of the reiteration of
demand on 25.01.2010. P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly deposed about the
reiteration of demand on 25.01.2010. Apart from that P.W.2 cogently
deposed about the demand made on 22.01.2010.
10.Therefore, the demand was properly proved through the evidence
of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have cogently deposed and their
evidence are trustworthy about the demand of money. The amount was
accepted by the deceased appellant and the same was clearly deposed by
P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the recovery was made in the presence of P.W.4,
immediate superior of the deceased/appellant. P.W.14, another official
witness, also has clearly deposed about the recovery of amount from the
pocket of the deceased appellant. The evidence of independent witness
namely, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.14 are clear that the recovery was made from
the pocket of the appellant. The theory of thrusting the amount in the
pocket and the same found scattered in the ground and at that time, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
Vigilance Officer came and caught the accused is unbelievable defence.
P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.14 deposed about the recovery of the amount in the
pocket of the appellant on his disclosure. Apart from that, the positive
result of the phenolphthalein test in the hands of the appellant and also the
shirt pocket of the appellant clearly proved that the amount was received
by the appellant and the same was kept by him in his pocket.
11. D.W.1 was examined to demonstrate the topography of the
occurrence place. Through demonstration of topography, the appellant
wanted to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.14 and P.W.10.Ex.P.
2 was marked to prove topography. But, his evidence does not inspire
confidence of this Court on the following version:-
v.rh.M.2 KGikahd tiuglk; ,y;iy vd;why;
rhpjhd;. ,e;j tiuglj;jpy; tha;fhYf;nfh
kw;w ,lq;fSf;nfh FwpaPLfs; nghl;L ehd; thq;;ftpy;iy
vd;why; rhpjhd;. vq;fs; mYtyf g[y tiuglj;jpy; me;j
tptuq;fs; ,y;iy. g[y vz; 19 tha;f;fhy; ,y;iy
vd;gjhy; jhd; 1990-ny mjw;fhd FwpaPL g[y
tiuglj;jpy; ,y;iy vd;why; mJ gw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ.
12. That apart, P.W.3, the official witness has no motive to depose
against the appellant. When the evidence of P.W.3 is clear about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
demand and acceptance, the same has to be accepted. Mere irrelevant,
minor discrepancies relating to topography of the occurrence place is not a
ground to eschew he evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3.
13. Apart from that, file relating to P.W.2 also was recovered from
the appellant. Further more, in the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
he admitted the meeting with P.W.2 on the date of the occurrence at the
relevant point of time and his only defence is that the amount was thrust in
his pocket. Therefore, the presence of the appellant on the date of the
occurrence and meeting with P.W.2 is clearly proved through the cogent
and trustworthy evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and also the admission made by
the appellant/deceased in the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The
only defence of thrusting is not believable as discussed earlier.
14.Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution clearly proved the
demand and acceptance and the acceptance of the bribe amount beyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.
12 and P.W.14. The defence witness was examined on the side of the
appellant to show the topography of the occurrence place. The topography
is immaterial in this case, when the evidence of independent witness
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
namely the immediate superior P.W.4 and the official witnesses P.W.14 and
P.W.3 are cogent in relating to the acceptance of the money and the
recovery of the amount. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution
clearly proved the charge against the appellant and the conviction and
sentence passed against him is confirmed. This Court finds no merit in the
appeal. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against him is liable to
be confirmed. In view of the death of the sole appellant during the
pendency of the appeal, the appeal is permitted to be continued by his wife.
15.Accordingly this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for Vigilance
and Anti Corruption Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in
Special Case No.70 of 2010, dated 31.05.2018 is hereby confirmed.
15.05.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
To
1.The larned Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Court -cum-
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
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.
sbn
Predelivery Judgment made in
15.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/05/2025 09:58:28 am )
