Madras High Court
T.V.S.Sarma vs State Repst By on 16 September, 2025
Author: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
Bench: D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
2025:MHC:2210
Crl.A.No.385 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judgment reserved on : 14.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 16.09.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Crl.A.No.385 of 2014
T.V.S.Sarma .. Appellant
Versus
State Repst by,
Inspector of Police,
SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai.
(R.C.MAI 2007 (A) 0024) .. Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., r/w Section
27 of P.C. Act, 1988, against the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellant by the Court of learned XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI
Cases, Chennai by judgment, dated 11.07.2014 in C.C.No.33 of 2009.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Shanker
For Respondent : Mr.N.Baaskaran,
1/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.385 of 2014
Special Public Prosecutor
(CBI Cases)
2/37
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Crl.A.No.385 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned XIII
Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, dated 11.07.2014, made
in C.C.No.3 of 2009. By that judgment, the appellant, who was tried as the
sole accused, was found guilty:
(a) of an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous
Imprisonment;
(b) of an offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous
Imprisonment;
(c) of an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay
a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months of Rigorous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Imprisonment; and
(d) of an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to
undergo one year of Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo three months of Rigorous Imprisonment.
For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their order in the
Trial Court.
2. On 30.05.2007, the respondent received a complaint from
T.Nagarajan, an Engineer & Ship Surveyor-cum-Deputy Director
(Technical) at the Mercantile Marine Department, Chennai. The complaint
stated that the Mercantile Marine Department is under the Ministry of
Shipping, Government of India. The department conducts examinations for
Marine Engineer Officers of various grades, from Class-IV to Class-I. These
officers, having completed their graduation in Mechanical Engineering and
undergone Sea Service or training at Sea, are eligible to sit for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
examination. The exam is held centrally across India and comprises two
sections: Written and Oral. Question papers are prepared and sent from the
Directorate General of Shipping, Jahaz Bhavan, Mumbai. There are only
three exam centers nationwide: Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata. In Chennai,
the Principal Officer-cum-Joint Director General (Technical) is the head of
the department and appoints the Examination In-charge, Invigilators, and
Evaluators. Evaluators are chosen from a panel approved by the Director
General. The written exam lasts three hours, with morning and evening
sessions, and is conducted in the Mercantile Marine Department's
examination hall in Chennai. Immediately after the exam, the Invigilator
collects the answer sheets from candidates and hands them over to the
Examination In-charge for safekeeping. The In-charge, after coding
(assigning a secret number), supplies the answer sheets to the empanelled
Evaluators for assessment. Evaluators conduct their evaluations either in the
conference hall or in the department’s examination hall. Once evaluated,
answer sheets are returned to the Examination In-charge. Candidates then
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
proceed to the Viva/Oral Test. Those who qualify in both tests receive
Certificates of Competency (COC) for sailing in international shipping,
which are recognized worldwide.
3. While the accused, T.V.S.Sarma, was serving as Examination In-
Charge from April 2005 to January 2006, information about widespread
malpractice during the Engineers' examination was received. Two specific
instances of cheating were identified. During the examination on 18th and
19th January 2006 for the subjects Marine Electro Technology and Ship
Cadet Stability, some candidates submitted answer sheets with most pages
left blank, which were scored off in pencil, and on certain pages, answers
were written partially in pencil. The invigilator supervising the exam hall,
suspecting foul play, took photocopies of the answer sheets of two
candidates, Sathyasrinivasaallu and Peddada Kalyana Krishna, before
handing the originals to the Examination In-Charge, the accused. Later,
since the same invigilator, Ajivasudevan (P.W.6), was the subject expert,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
these papers were brought to him for evaluation. He discovered that the
blank spaces scored off were filled with complete answers in pen, and the
partially written answers were also completed. He immediately reported this
to the Principal Officer, T.Nagarajan. Nagarajan then called the two
candidates and confronted them with photocopies of their original answer
sheets. They admitted that they had rewritten the answers afterwards. They
revealed the modus operandi: they had been told by the owner of Jayanthi
Lodge that passing the exam was possible by paying a certain amount
through agents. Subsequently, a person named W.N.S.Butt approached them
at the lodge and quoted Rs.50,000/- per paper. He claimed to have helped
many candidates before. He instructed them to leave the answers blank or
fill them in pencil, and after the exam, he would collect the answer sheets
and provide them with the correct answers from books or materials. The
candidates admitted to paying W.N.S.Butt Rs.3,00,000/- for six papers and
Rs.2.5 lakhs for five papers. They followed these instructions during the
exam. That very night, they received the answer sheets at the lodge, erased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
the scored and pencil-written portions, and filled in the correct answers.
4. Based on these revelations, 24 answer sheets of candidates were
randomly selected and sent to the Forensic Laboratory in Chennai for expert
analysis. The experts confirmed erasures and re-writings on the answer
sheets. Subsequently, another report was obtained for 23 more answer
sheets, which was also confirmed by the experts. In light of these findings, a
complaint was lodged at the B1 North Police Station, Flower Bazar,
Chennai, which also registered a case (Crime No.72 of 2006). Regarding the
incident involving those two candidates, the local police were unable to
identify the individual involved. The two candidates approached the High
Court to declare the results. During a detailed investigation, it was
discovered to be part of an ongoing scam; as a result, a total of 565 answer
sheets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, leading to the filing of
the current complaint.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
5. On the basis of the said complaint (Ex.P-56), a case in RC MA1
2007 (A) 0024 was registered by the respondent for the offences under
Sections 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
by P.W.24. P.W.24 then completed the investigation and filed a Final Report
proposing the accused be held guilty of the offences under Section 120B
read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 13(2)
read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case was
registered as C.C.No.33 of 2009. Upon the appearance of the accused and
the provision of the copies, the following seven charges were framed against
the accused:-
"Firstly, you Thiru T.S. Sarma while working as
Engineer and Ship Surveyor-cum-Deputy Director
General (Technical) and also Examination in Charge vide
office order No.4 - EST (37) A 00680 dated 15.4.2005 in
Mercantile Marine Department, Chennai-1, during the
period from April 2005 to January 2005, entered into a
criminal conspiracy with B.Karunakar (approver)
Sh.Dommetti Shanmukhesh (approver) and Sh.Dilip
Kumar Pandey (approver) at Chennai and other places to
commit criminal misconduct and to cheat the Mercantile
Marine Department in pursuance of the said criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
conspiracy Thiru B.Karunakar (approver), as your agent
and on your behalf contacted the candidates namely Thiru
Dommetti Shanmukhesh (approver) and Dilip Kumar
Pandey (approver) who were appearing for the Marine
Engineering Examination, with an assurance that they
would be passed if they make pencil writings/drawings in
the answer sheets in the examination hall as the same will
be made available to them after the examination is over
and they would be allowed to write the correct answer in
ink after erasing the pencil writings/drawings and for that
the candidates Dommetti Shanmukhesh (approver) and
Dilip Kumar Pandey (approver) have to pay a sum of
Rs.2.75 lacs and Rs.2.4 lacs respectively to you who was
examination in charge for conducting examination for
Marine Engineers Class IV to Class I through
Sh.B.Karunakar (approver) and in pursuance of the
conspiracy, you stealthily handed over the answer sheets
to Thiru Dommetti Shanmukhesh (approver) and Sh.Dilip
Kumar Pandey (approver) through B.Karunakar
(approver) and allowed them to erase the pencil drawings/
writings and rewrite the answer sheets dishonestly and
collected the rewriting answer sheets from them through
B.Karunakar (approver) and also collected the illegal
gratification of Rs.2.75 lakhs and Rs.2.4 lacs from Thiru
Dommetti Shanmukhesh (approver) and Sh.Diip Kumar
Pandey (approver) and got them passed in the
examinations as the result was published and thereby you
committed an otfenbe punishable u/s 120-B r/w 420, 381
IPC, sec.7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988 and
within my cognizance.
Secondly, that in pursuance of the above said
conspiracy you being the custodian of the answer sheets
for the Marine Engineer's Examination for Class IV Part B
from 21.11.05 10 24.11.05 has stealthily taken out the
answer Sheets of Thiru Sh.Dommetti Shanmukhesh
(approver) from your custody in the office and gave them
to Thiru B.Karunakar (approver) for the purpose of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
handing over to Thiru Dommetti Shanmukhesh (approver)
and thereby allowed Thiru Dommetti Shanmuthesh
(approver) to rewrite the answer sheets dishonestly and
got back the rewritten answer sheets and thereby you have
committed an offence punishable u/s 381 IPC and within
my cognizance.
Thirdly, that in pursuance of the above said
conspiracy you being the custodian of the answer sheets
for the Marine Engineer's Examination for Class II Part B
from 19.12.2005 to 23.12.05 has stealthily taken out the
answer sheets of Thiru Dilip Kumar Pandey (approver)
from your custody in the office and gave them to Thiru
B.Karunakar (approver) for the purpose of handing over to
Thiru Dilip Kumar Pandey (approver) and thereby allowed
Thiru Dilip Kumar Pandey (approver) to rewrite the
answer sheets dishonestly and got back the rewritten
answer sheets and thereby you have committed an offence
punishable u/s 381 IPC and within my cognizance.
Fourthly, in pursuance of the above said
conspiracy you being examination in charge of Marine
Engineering examinations, a public servant collected
Rs.75,000/- from Sh. Dommetti Shanmuhesh (approver)
as illegal gratification through Thiru B.Karunakar
(approver) and received the amount from Thiru
B.Karunakar (approver) at Beach Railway Station along
with rewritten answer sheets on 22.11.2005 and further
received the balance illegal gratification of Rs.2 lakhs
from Thiru Dommetti Shanmukhesh (approver) through
Thiru B.Karunakar (approver) as illegal gratification in the
last week of November 2005 in your house at
Visakhapatnam and the above amounts were collected as
reward for allowing Thiru Dommetti Shanmukhesh
(approver) for rewriting the answer sheets of Marine
Engineering Practice and oral examination and got him
passed and thereby you have committed an offence
punishable u/s 7 of P.C.Act 1988 and within my
cognizance.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Fifthly, in pursuance of the above said conspiracy
you being examination in charge of Marine Engineering
examinations a public servant collected Rs.2.4 lakhs from
Sh.Dilip Kumar Pandey (approver) as illegal gratification
through Thiru B.Karunakar (approver) and received the
amount on 28.12.05 from Thiru B.Karunakar (approver) at
Beach Railway Station and the rewritten answer sheets
were received by you on 22.12.2005 and the above
amount was collected as reward for allowing Sh.Dilip
Kumar Pandey for rewriting the answer sheet of Marine
Engineering examination and got him passed and thereby
you have committed an offence punishable u/s 7 of
P.C.Act 1988 and within my cognizance.
Sixthly, in pursuance of the above said conspiracy
you being the examination in charge conducted by
Mercantile Marine Department by abusing your official
position cheated the Mercantile Marine Department by
committing criminal misconduct and abusing your official
position dishonestly i.e. stealthily removing the answer
sheets from your custody in the office and handing over
them to the candidates Thiru Sh.Dommetti Shanmukhesh
(approver) and Thiru Dillip Kumar Pandey (approver)
through B.Karunakar (approver) for allowing them to
rewrite the answer sheets after erasing the pencil
marks/drawings dishonestly and thereby received the
illegal gratification of Rs.2.75 lakhs and Rs.2.4 lakhs
respectively from them as illegal gratification and got
them passed in the examinations and thereby you have
committed an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC and within
my cognizance.
Seventhly in pursuance of the above said
conspiracy you being the examination in charge conduct
by Mercantile Marine Department by abusing your official
position as a public servant cheated the Mercantile Marine
Department by committing criminal misconduct and
abusing your official position dishonestly i.e. stealthily
removing the answer sheets from your custody in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
office and handing over them to the candidates Thiru
Sh.Dommetti Shanmukesh (approver) and Thiru Dilip
Kumar Pandey(approver) through B.Karunakar (approver)
for allowing them to rewrite the answer sheets after
erasing the pencil marks/ drawings dishonestly and
thereby received the illegal gratification of Rs.2.75 lakhs
and Rs.2.4 lakhs respectively from them as reward or
pecuniary advantage and got them passed in the
examinations and thereby you have committed an offence
punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act, 1988."
6. The accused denied the charges and stood trial. To establish the
charges, the sanctioning authority was examined as P.W.1. B.Karunagar,
who conspired with the accused in committing the crime, contacted one of
the candidates, Shanmukesh, and arranged for him to pay a bribe, engaged in
malpractice in the examination in collusion with the accused, later turning
approver and receiving a pardon, was examined as P.W.2. Similarly, the
candidate Shanmukesh, who paid the bribe, cleared his examination, became
an approver, and received a pardon from the court, was examined as P.W.3.
Another candidate, who also confessed to paying money, was examined as
P.W.4. The Principal Officer, who took charge of the department in Chennai
from July 2005 onwards, was examined as P.W.5. The Deputy Chief
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Surveyor, a subject expert and invigilator, who collected photocopies of
answer sheets, which were scored off in pencil, corrected these answer
sheets, and uncovered the scam, was examined as P.W.6. The officer who
identified and attested the document making the accused the Examination
Incharge was examined as P.W.7. The then Manager of Jayanthi Lodge,
where these candidates stayed, was examined as P.W.8, and through him, the
relevant ledgers and proofs regarding the candidates' stay were produced.
The person responsible for evaluating and correcting the answer sheets was
examined as P.W.9, while an external examiner who corrected the answer
sheets was examined as P.W.10. An employee of the lodging house, GB
Manson, was examined as P.W.11; through him, the ledgers, receipts, and
proof of stay were sought to be marked. Another employee of Welcome
Guest House was examined as P.W.12. An external examiner was examined
as P.W.13. The Upper Division Clerk of the examination section at that time
was examined as P.W.14. The Forensic Expert, who examined the answer
sheets and opined that the writings were made after partial and mechanical
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
erasure of pencil marks, was examined as P.W.15. The Magistrates who
recorded statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code or
confession statements of the accused were examined as P.W.16 to P.W.21.
The officer heading the department in Chennai's Mercantile Marine
Department at that time was examined as P.W.22. The other person, who
was also the Examination Incharge and lodged a complaint, was examined
as P.W.23. The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.24. Prosecution
exhibits, including answer sheets, Section 164 statements, registers, ledgers,
and expert opinions, were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-57. During
questioning under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the accused
denied the incriminating evidence and circumstances as false. No evidence
was presented by the defense. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court
found that the prosecution proved charges Nos.1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 beyond all
reasonable doubt and sentenced the accused. Accordingly, while acquitting
him of charges Nos.4 and 5. Aggrieved, the present Criminal Appeal has
been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
7. Mr.K.Shanker, learned counsel for the appellant/accused, by taking
this Court with the entire oral and documentary evidence submitted by the
prosecution, would make the following submissions:-
(a) There is no conclusive evidence on record that the accused
received any pecuniary benefit in this case.
(b) It can be seen that while the accused was also Examination
Incharge, he was not the only person; he shared the responsibility with
another Examination Incharge, P.W.23. Therefore, the accusation against the
accused is based on mere suspicion. It is entirely possible that the other
Examination Incharges alone committed the offense.
(c) The modus operandi, as alleged by the candidates in this case, is
that the papers would be handed to them later, and they would fill them in.
From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is very clear that the
papers were kept in the almirah of the section, and apart from the accused,
several other officers of the section had access. Therefore, the prosecution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
merely wants the Court to presume that it is only this accused who might
have taken the papers and given them back to the candidates.
(d) The evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4, the Approver and the
other candidates, is completely inconsistent with each other and with their
own earlier statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Reading all of it together, it would render them utterly
untrustworthy to serve as the basis for a conviction of the accused.
(e) The original complaint received is identical to the case lodged
earlier before the Beach Police Station, Chennai North. Therefore, without
properly addressing the initial complaint, filing a second complaint about the
same incident is unjustifiable.
(f) If the prosecution is unable to trace the said W.N.S.Butt or the
owners of the lodging house, who had perpetrated the fraud, then, only to
give a quietus and to blame somebody, the accused alone was prosecuted.
The Investigating Officer conducted a farcical investigation and, unable to
uncover anything, filed a charge sheet with all irrelevant materials just to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
create an artificial semblance of a case, while no serious evidence could be
found by him. The origin of the case is based on the statement of P.W.6,
who claimed to have taken photocopies of the original answer sheets, on
which the blank spaces were scored off in pencil and subsequently filled in,
which the prosecution did not produce.
(g) In the absence of any information or evidence regarding the
conspiracy or any proof of receiving any pecuniary benefit, the entire case of
the prosecution is based on presumption and conjecture and therefore,
should be rejected by this Court.
8. Per contra, Mr.N.Baaskaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor
(CBI Case) for the respondent, submitted that the prosecution's case, in brief,
is that the accused, who was working as an Engineer-cum-Ship Surveyor-
cum-Deputy Director General (Technical), also served as the Examination
Incharge in the Mercantile Marine Department from April 2005 to January
2006. During this period, he conducted examinations for classes IV to I.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
During this time, P.W.2, Karunakar, Manager of M/s. Holy Island Fishing
Company at Visakhapatnam, came into contact with the accused in 2003-
2004, as the accused was Surveyor then, for obtaining a Certificate of
Fitness for Trawlers of the company. Through this contact, P.W.2,
Karunakar, acted as the accused’s agent and contacted P.W.3, Shanmukesh,
and P.W.4, Dilip Kumar Pandey, the candidates appearing in the
examination, and they conspired to cheat the department and pass the exam.
P.W.2 instructed P.W.3 and P.W.4 to make pencil writings/drawings on the
answer sheets, which would be handed back to them after the exam,
allowing them to erase the pencil marks and write correct answers in ink.
Accordingly, P.W.3 paid Rs.2,75,000 and P.W.4 paid Rs.2,40,000 through
P.W.2.
9. Pursuant thereto, P.W.2 collected details of P.W.3, and examinations
were conducted on 21.11.2005 and 24.11.2005, which consist of these
papers. P.W.3 appeared for the said examination under rotation No.2067.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
The accused, as the custodian of the answer sheets, took out the answer
sheets and handed them over to P.W.3 through P.W.2. P.W.3 erased the pencil
drawings and re-wrote the answer sheet during the nights of 21.11.2005 and
24.11.2005 in room No.307, booked in the name of P.W.2 at Welcome
Lodge, Chepauk. The re-written answer sheets were returned to the accused
on 22.11.2005 and 24.11.2005 by P.W.2 at Beach Railway Station. P.W.3
handed over illegal gratification of Rs.75,000 for the accused on 21.11.2005
at Welcome Lodge. P.W.2 handed over the same amount to the accused on
22.11.2005 at Beach Railway Station. P.W.3 delivered the remaining
Rs.2,00,000/- at Visakhapatnam in the last week of November, and P.W.2, in
turn, handed it over to the accused at his house in Visakhapatnam. Similarly,
P.W.2 collected details of P.W.4 for the December 2005 examination. The
bribe amount was fixed at Rs.2.5 lakhs. P.W.4 was specifically instructed by
P.W.2 to write only correct answers and mark only with a pencil. The
examination was held from 19.12.2005 to 23.12.2005, with P.W.4 appearing
under rotation No.2394. Using the same method, the accused, through
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
P.W.2, handed over answer sheets on 23.12.2005, which P.W.4 duly returned
to the accused. P.W.4 handed over an illegal gratification of Rs.2.4 lakhs to
P.W.2 on 28.12.2005 outside G.P.Manson, Mannady, Chennai. P.W.2
collected this amount and transferred it to the accused at Beach Railway
Station on the same day.
10. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.2,
P.W.3, and P.W.4 confessed to all the above, and they were tendered pardon
by the Court. To further prove the charges, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined by
the prosecution. The sanctioning authority was examined as P.W.1. The
aforementioned Approvers were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.4, who testified
about each and every detail of the entire fraud committed. By examining the
Principal Officer as P.W.5, the fact of how Ajivasudevan developed doubt
and the genesis of the case came into existence was proved. The said
Ajivasudevan was examined as P.W.6. P.W.7 was examined to prove that the
custody of these answer sheets was with the accused. The concerned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
valuers/external experts were also examined. P.W.14, the Upper Division
Clerk, was examined to prove the safe custody of the answer sheets with the
accused and to confirm the invigilation duties and conduct of the
examination. P.W.15, the Forensic Expert, categorically stated that after
partially and mechanically erasing the previous (pencil matter), which can be
deciphered as lines, designs, alphabets, and numbers, the present writings
were made on the answer sheets of P.W.3 and P.W.4. The learned
Magistrates who recorded the confession statements of P.W.2 to P.W.4 were
also examined. P.W.22 was examined to prove that it was actually the
accused who served as the Examination Incharge. The other person in
charge of P.W.23 was also examined, who testified about going on study
leave to Mumbai during the relevant period. The Investigating Officer was
examined as P.W.24. Through all this evidence, the prosecution has proved
the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that the very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Ex.P-4, dated 15.04.2005, clearly shows that it was the accused who took
over the examination section from T.Nagarajan and was responsible for the
relevant documents, keys, registers, etc. All the answer sheets were kept
only by the accused in a locker in his room, and he was the custodian. The
fact that P.W.2, Karunakar, frequently met the accused in his office in
Chennai also stands proved. The expert opinion demonstrates the modus
operandi of erasing the previous pencil markings and filling in the correct
answers. Although many other candidates did not come forward to give
statements, the specific cases of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were proved, leading to the
restricted allegations despite suspicion that a large number of answer sheets
were prepared in an identical manner. The proof of passing illegal
gratification is established through P.W.2. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly
convicted the accused, and that decision does not require any interference.
12. I have considered rival submissions on either side and perused the
material records of this case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
13. The prosecution's allegation pertains to the examinations
conducted from 21.11.2005 to 24.11.2005 and from 19.12.2005 to
23.12.2005. First, the prosecution must prove that only the accused was in
charge of these examinations. It is evident that the office order issued by the
Principal Officer on 15.04.2005, marked as Ex.P-34, states that the Principal
Officer appointed T.V.S.Sarma, an Engineer and Ship Surveyor, as the
examination in-charge of the Engineering exam, along with his other
statutory duties as a surveyor, effective immediately. Additionally,
T.Nagarajan (P.W.23) was instructed to hand over all relevant keys,
registers, and related documents concerning the Engineering exam to Sarma,
the accused, without delay. P.W.5 also confirms this, stating that during
2005-2006, Sarma was the designated Examination Incharge, and all matters
related to the examination were handled by him. All answer sheets were
stored by Sarma in a locker in his room, making him the sole custodian.
Ex.P-34 was also verified through P.W.7, the Deputy Chief Surveyor of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Mercantile Marine Department, who attested the copies of Ex.P-34. P.W.14,
an Upper Division Clerk working in the department, corroborates that the
accused, Sarma, was in charge of the examination during this period.
Therefore, it is established that the accused was solely responsible for
overseeing the examination.
14. The fact that P.W.3, Shanmukesh, took the examination with
rotation No.2067 is demonstrated by Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5. Similarly, Ex.P-6
to Ex.P-8 show that P.W.4 took the examination on the same dates with
rotation No.2934. The answer sheets, Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-8, indicate that the
writings of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were not entirely done normally. Several pages
contain incorrect answers and are scored off. For example, in Ex.P-4, pages
3 and 4, where answers to question No.2 were written, are scored off by the
candidate. Similarly, three other pages are scored off, and the answers were
re-written. According to the expert, P.W.15, who provided his report in
Ex.P-44, these answer sheets, belonging to P.W.3 and P.W.4, show that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Ex.P-4 was referred to as Q.62, Ex.P-5 as Q.88, Ex.P-6 as Q.221, Ex.P-7 as
Q.190, and Ex.P-8 as Q.207. Except for Q.207, many pages of the other
answer sheets have been partially, mechanically erased, with lines, designs,
alphabets, and numerals faintly visible under light and infrared sources.
15. Further, with reference to Q.207, Ex.P-8 indicates that the
writings were made after partially erasing the cross lines made by pencil on
page Nos.7 to 13, using a light source of oblique and infrared. The marks
observed by P.W.2 and P.W.3 have been proven by producing these papers,
along with the external examiners who evaluated these exhibits.
Additionally, the valuers have explicitly stated that it was the accused who
handed over the paper, and after evaluation, the papers were handed back to
the accused. To that extent, the modus operandi adopted to cheat in the
examination is established.
16. In this context, the evidence of the concerned candidates, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
approvers, becomes relevant. P.W.3 explicitly states that P.W.2 instructed
them to write known answers in blue ink and to draw with a pencil for
unknown answers. He followed these instructions on 21.11.2005 for his
Engineering knowledge (motor paper). On the same day, he was called by
P.W.2 to Chepauk stadium, where P.W.2 took him to his room at Welcome
Guest House, handed him the answer sheet, and directed him to erase the
unknown answers written in pencil and copy the correct answers after
referring to the books. The candidate also identified Ex.P-4. Regarding the
other answer book in Ex.P-5, the same method was followed. His earlier
statement before P.W.18, the learned Magistrate, recorded under Ex.P-19
under proper caution and procedure, and given after a day’s notice, was in
the same lines where he categorically described meeting P.W.2, who asked
him to come to his lodge room, handed over the papers, and instructed him
to write. Therefore, the modus operandi, as alleged by the prosecution, is
proven.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
17. P.W.2, Karunakaran, deposed that P.W.3, Shanmukesh, first met
him at Visakhapatnam Railway Station, discussed the matter, and expressed
his willingness to pay money and pass the exams. Since the accused had
already informed him that it would cost Rs.75,000/- per paper, he conveyed
this to the accused, contacted him, and received instructions regarding the
modus operandi and the payment. The scheme involved writing correct
answers with a pen and unknown answers with a pencil, and papers were
provided to P.W.2 by the accused. P.W.2, in turn, handed these papers over at
Welcome Lodge on the scheduled dates, and P.W.3 wrote the exams
accordingly. P.W.2 clearly states that he received Rs.75,000/- on 21.11.2005
and handed it over to the accused in a cover along with the answer sheet.
Similarly, during the second exam, he testified that P.W.3 gave him
Rs.2,00,000/- at Seethammadara, Visakhapatnam, which he also handed over
to the accused.
18. P.W.2's version is supported by the rental receipts for his stay at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Welcome Lodge, including Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14, and Ex.P-15. The room
arrival and departure ledgers are marked as Ex.P-16, Ex.P-17, and Ex.P-18.
The lodge employee was also examined as P.W.12, who signed these
exhibits. In the first Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded before the
learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.01.2009, P.W.2 stated that he
helped P.W.3 and P.W.4 and that they gave him money, which he handed
over to the accused. However, this statement did not explain how papers
were handed over or how the answer sheet was filled out. As a result, a
further confession statement with detailed references was recorded before
the learned XX Metropolitan Magistrate. Both Magistrates were examined,
and these statements were marked as Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10. Therefore, there
is no reason to disbelieve P.W.2. Although there are discrepancies regarding
details, the Court recognises P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.4's anxiety to reveal the
truth and at the same time to possibly avoid punishment. Overall, their
statements are corroborated by other evidence. There was no motive or
desire for P.W.2 to falsely depose against the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
19. The genesis of the case is explained in detail by the prosecution.
P.W.5, the Principal Officer, discussed the doubt that first arose in September
2005. In a candidate's answer sheet by Ramesh, present on all pages, there
were no written theoretical answers; only pencil drawings. This document is
marked as Ex.P-25. Upon noticing this, he immediately marked the answer
sheet as failed. Similarly, for another candidate, P.Kameswara Rao, whose
answer sheet is marked as Ex.P-27, all pages consisted of pencil drawings
with no detailed theoretical answers. He endorsed on the first page that the
candidate failed. The accused was present when P.W.5 made this
endorsement. They suspected that external examiners might be involved and
decided that external examiners would correct all answer sheets in the
department. In January 2006, P.W.6, on invigilation duty, observed that
candidate P.Kalyanakrishnan was writing answers with a pencil and making
sketches instead of using a pen. Curious, he reported this to his superior,
Captain Mishra. Mishra took photocopies of the answer sheets with pencil
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
marks and instructed P.W.6 not to disclose this to the Examination In-
Charge, T.V.S.Sarma. Similarly, on 19.01.2016, candidate Satyasrinivasulu
Allu's answer sheets were mostly blank except for one page. Since a similar
incident had been noticed the day before, he reported it to Captain Mishra,
who took photocopies and instructed him not to inform the Examination In-
Charge. Normally, these answer sheets are kept in the custody of
T.V.S.Sarma, the Examination In-Charge. When these answer sheets were
presented for correction, he discovered that Peddada Kalyanakrishna's
original pencil answer sheet had been altered to pen. He immediately
reported this to Mishra, who compared the answer sheets to the photocopies
and found evidence of modifications.
20. Upon confrontation, the said candidates confessed the truth that at
Jayanthi lodge, they retrieved answers, paid Rs.50,000/- per paper, and
wrote the correct answers before returning them. Immediately thereafter, the
accused was removed from the post of Examination Incharge, and a police
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
complaint was filed against him at B2 Police Station. Following his
removal, the accused, Sarma, was also suspended. When 24 answer sheets
were randomly collected, they were sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic
Laboratory for assessment. Most of these sheets were found to be tampered
with. The reports were forwarded to higher officials, and further inquiry was
ordered. Subsequently, 565 papers were sent for forensic examination,
revealing that most had been erased and rewritten. A complaint was lodged
with the respondent Police. P.W.23, Nagarajan, the other officer in charge,
confirmed the custody and distribution details of the papers for evaluation.
The prosecution explained that although efforts were made to contact many
candidates, only P.W.3 and P.W.4 provided credible evidence of malpractice.
Despite strong suspicions involving several individuals, charges were filed
only regarding the two incidents, as other persons involved in Jayanthi lodge
could not be traced. The connection of the accused, T.V.S.Sarma, to P.W.2 is
established. The investigation officer’s evidence shows that the other
accused, W.N.S.Butt, had his house searched at Vizianagaram, Andhra
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
Pradesh, but since no evidence could be found against him, charges were
dropped. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant
in this regard is rejected.
21. In this regard, although the learned Counsel pointed out certain
contradictions in the statements made by P.W.4, a careful review of the initial
confession statements of P.W.4, marked as Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-24, along with
the overall reading of the evidence in chief and cross-examination, reveals
the core facts concerning the cheating in the examination and the payment of
money. Although P.W.4 introduces an element of threat, it is possible to
distinguish between irrelevant details and substantive evidence, and in
general, P.W.4's testimony remains credible. Concerning the charge under
Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code, there is clear evidence from the
prosecution witnesses that only the appellant/accused was responsible for
safeguarding the question papers and answer sheets until the results, after
correction, were sent to Bombay. The First Information Report indicates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
that initially, suspicion fell on external valuers, and thus, the answer sheets
were not sent out of the examination center. Instead, all experts were
summoned to the department to correct the answers there. Witnesses P.W.6,
the Deputy Chief Surveyor working at the center at that time; P.W.7, another
Deputy Chief Surveyor in the department; and P.W.14, the Upper Division
Clerk, all affirm that, as Examination Incharge, the answer sheets were kept
only in the safe custody of the appellant/accused. Their testimonies
corroborate the evidence of P.W.2, the Approver, who states that the
appellant/accused secretly removed the answer sheets from the cupboard and
handed them over at Beach Railway Station, then took them to the
candidates P.W.3 and P.W.4 for correction. As a result, the modus operandi
of both stealing the answer sheets from custody and cheating the department
is established. From the Head of the Department down to the Upper Division
Clerk, all have consistently stated that the appellant/accused was the
Examination Incharge, a fact the accused does not deny.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
22. Thus, in this case, the chain of circumstances points to the only
conclusion that the accused is guilty. The modus, the custody of the answer
sheets, the tampering, and the writing of the examinations all categorically
and conclusively point only towards the accused. Although it is suspected
that he has perpetrated a continuous scam over time, without bringing the
case to trial on suspicion, the prosecution has chosen to limit the charges to
what can be supported by concrete evidence and it has succeeded in
establishing the guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.
23. Consequently, I find all the charges against the accused under
Section 120(b) read with Sections 381 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as
well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, to be proved. For the proven charges, the Trial Court
imposed only the minimum sentence of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
which does not warrant interference.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
24. Accordingly, finding no merits, this Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed. The appellant is granted twelve weeks time, from the date of
receipt of a web-copy of this order, to surrender before the Trial Court to
undergo the sentence.
16.09.2025
Neutral Citation : yes
grs
To
1. The XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Chennai.
2. The Inspector of Police,
SPE/CBI/ACB/Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
grs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 06:17:26 pm )
