Display PDF

State of T.N., rep by Inspector, V & A.C., Trichy Vs Narayanan Spl.C.No.
01 of 2012
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE/SPECIAL JUDGE AT ARIYALUR

Present: Thiru A.S.Ravi, B.Sc., M.L.,
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge,
Ariyalur.
Tuesday, the 27th day of February 2018
Spl. Case No.01 of 2012
State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police.,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy … Complainant
Vs
C.Narayanan, age 55,
S/o A.Chellamuthu,
Village Administrative Officer,
Reddipalayam, Udayarpalayam Taluk,
Ariyalur District ... Accused
Sri. G.Kalai Gnanam, Additional Public Prosecutor

Sri. S.Venkatraman & M.Prameswaran Advocates for Accused.
This case came on 19.02.2018 for final hearing before this court and upon hearing
the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence of
prosecution side and defence side and having stood over for consideration till this day, the
court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
According to the Inspector, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy that on 21.05.2004
at 12.00 noon the accused Narayanan, V.A.O., Reddipalayam, Ariyalur Taluk demanded
demanded Rs.800/- as bribe from the defacto complainant C.Paramasivam,
Muniyankurichi Village, for the purpose of issuing 8 property certificate for the release of 4
accused on bail, who were involved in Vikramangalam police station Cr.No.181 of 2014 and
on Judicial custody, other than legal remuneration from him as a motive or reward; that in
furtherance of the said earlier demand, on 26.05.2004 at 03.00 p.m., at V.A.O. Office,
Reddipalayam, the accused being a Public Servant, reiterated the demand of the said
gratification of Rs.800/- other than legal remuneration from the said C.Paramasivam, son
of Chinnathambi in the presence of an independent official witness J.Paramasivam, son of
Jothivel as a motive or reward and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable
under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988; in the course of same transaction, on the
same date, time and place, the accused Narayanan, being a public servant, by corrupt and
illegal means and by abusing his official position, accepted a sum of Rs.800/- as pecuniary
A.S.Ravi, Chief Judicial Magistrate/Spl. Judge, Ariyalur Judgement dated 27th February 2018 Page 1 of 25
State of T.N., rep by Inspector, V & A.C., Trichy Vs Narayanan Spl.C.No.01 of 2012
advantage from C.Paramasivam for himself and thereby committed the offence of criminal
misconduct punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. On receipt of the final report along with the relevant records from the
prosecution, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur took the same on file as Spl. Case
No.01 of 2006 against accused. After appearance of the accused, free copies were furnished
to him under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.
3. After hearing both sides and after careful scrutiny of the documents, this
court framed the following charges against the accused:-
 Charge under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 for having
demanded Rs.800/- as bribe from the defacto complainant C.Paramasivam,
Muniyankurichi Village, for the purpose of issuing 8 property certificate for the
release of 4 accused on bail, who were involved in Vikramangalam police station
Cr.No.181 of 2014 and on Judicial custody, other than legal remuneration from
him as a motive or reward on 21.05.2004 at 12.00 noon; and
 Charge under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988,
being a public servant, for having obtained a sum of Rs.800/- for himself as
pecuniary advantage from C.Paramasivam and thereby committed the offence of
criminal misconduct punishable under Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The accused when questioned as respects the charges so framed against him,
he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5. After examination of Pw1 to Pw10 and exhibition of Ex.P1 to Ex.P15, pending

trial, in view of bifurcation of Perambalur District, the said case was transferred to the
Hon‟ble Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur. The said court
examined Pw11 to Pw15. Subsequently, in view of the constitution of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Ariyalur, this case has been transferred to this court for disposal
according to law.
6. The Prosecution, in proof of the said charges, examined 22 witnesses,

exhibited 22 documents and marked 3 material objects.
7. The facts which are necessary for disposal, as per the prosecution, are
briefly stated as follows:- The accused was working as V.A.O., Reddipalayam, Ariyalur
District. Pw2 C.Paramasivam is the resident of Muniyankurichi Village. Sengamalam, wife
of Muniyappan and Durai Raj‟s wife made oral fight on 08.05.2004 at water pipe and
subsequently there was an fisticuff between them. Consequently, Durairaj lodged complaint
before Vikkramangalam police station in Cr.No.181 of 2004 against Pw2‟s friends
Muniyappan, Sengamalam, Murugesan, Ulaganathan and Muthusamy, in which
MUrugesan, Ulaganathan, Muniyappan and Muthusamy were arrested and sent to Judicial
custody on 21.05.2004. Sengamalam requested Pw2 to give bail. When Pw2 contacted his
counsel, they advised to get 2 solvency certificates from V.A.O. for each accused. Thus, Pw2
went to the office of the accused at 12.00 noon. The accused demanded Rs.100/- per
certificate, in total Rs.800/-. In spite of his request in making payment, the accused strictly
said that without the payment he would not issue the certificates. Even though, he was not
willing to pay the bribe, he agreed to pay. He gave Ex.P2 Complaint to Pw19 Govindasamy,
Inspector, who received the same on 26.05.2004 at 06.30 a.m., and lodged Ex.P17 Printed
F.I.R. in Cr.No.03 of 2004 under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The
signature of the Pw2 in Ex.P17 for having acknowledged the copy of F.I.R. is marked as
Ex.P3. Pw19 recorded the statement of Pw2 and he was asked to wait in the police station.
8. Pw19 then summoned two witnesses, each one from Fisheries and Forest
Department, Trichy to his office at Trichy by contacting their higher officials through phone.
On 26.05.2004 at 08.00 hours, Pw3 Paramasivam, Junior Assistant of Fisheries
Department, Trichy and Pw22 Thangaraj, Junior Assistant of District Forest Office, Trichy
were also present. They were introduced themselves through Pw19. The copy of Ex.P2 was
given to them and they were asked to go through the complaint and printed F.I.R. and verify
the genuineness of Ex.P2 Complaint. Pw19 then collected 8 x Rs.100/- currency notes
intended to be given to accused as bribe money from Pw2. Pw19 noted the serial numbers
in the currency notes in Mahazar. Phenolphthalein powder were applied on the currency
notes collected from Pw2. Carbonate mixture were prepared and the necessary tests were
demonstrated to Pw2, Pw3 and Pw22 through Constable No.633 Srinivasan. The change of
colour into pink and importance of the said test also explained to them. The currency notes
were kept in the shirt left outside pocket. Pw2 and Pw3 were asked by Pw19 to meet the
accused in his office and handover the tainted currency notes M.O.1 series to the accused,
if asked for by him. Pw19 further informed them that after handing over the bribe money,
they have to make a signal by tying the towel over his head. Pw3 was asked to accompany
with Pw2 and to watch the proceedings carefully. Ex.P4 Mahazar was prepared from 08.00
to 08.30 hours, in which Pw2, Pw3, Pw22 Constable Sathyamoorthy, who typed the
mahazar and Pw19 put their signatures. Pw19 also sent the complaint and F.I.R. to the
respective court.
9. On 26.05.2004 at 11.00 hours, Pw19, Pw2, Pw3, Pw22 and other police
personnel attached to the raiding party went to the office of the accused at Reddipalayam
Village. At 13.45 hours, they reached Reddipalayam and stopped the vehicles before one
perlong from V.A.O. Office. Again, the instructions were repeated to Pw2 and Pw3 by Pw19
and instructed them to meet the accused along with 8 sureties. Pw2 and Pw3 and 8
sureties entered into the Reddipalayam V.A.O. Office and met the accused at 02.00 p.m.
Pw19, Pw22 Thangaraj and other police party had hidden themselves and watched the
proceedings. When they entered, the accused came out from his office to wash his hands
after taking lunch. They gave patta pass books to the accused. The accused prepared
solvency certificates and handed over to Pw2. When Pw2 gave Rs.800/-, the accused
expressed that he was fearing to receive the money whether they met Vigilance Police and
refused to receive the money. Pw2 replied that he did not go to Vigilance Police. Since, the
accused against refused to receive the money, Pw2 passed the money to Pw12 Veeramuthu
and asked him to hand over to the accused, who stated that it was kept over the table of the
accused. After verifying the same with Veeramuthu, Pw2 made the signal as already
instructed by Pw19. Then Pw19, Pw22 and other police personal, who accompanied with
Pw19 approached the accused and Pw2 and Pw3 identified the accused as the one, who
received M.O.1 series from Pw2. Pw19 introduced himself to the accused as Inspector of
Police, V & A.C. Department. The accused was very much perturbed and he was found
sweating and severing. Pw19 instructed Pw2 to go away. At that time, Pw11 Pugazhenthi,
Firka Surveyor also was available with the accused. Pw19 asked about the money received
from Pw2. The accused replied that he did not touch the money kept by Pw2. The tainted
currency notes were compared with the serial numbers in Ex.P4 Mahazar and they found
correct. The fingers of both hands of the accused were dipped into the Sodium Carbonate
Mixture, prepared, but there was no change in colour of the solution. Pw19 sealed the
M.O.2 and M.O.3 Bottles, pasted a slip and assigned 'L'& „R‟ mark with crime number. He
also seized Ex.P5 to Ex.P12 Solvency Certificates, Personal Diaries, Ex.P22 Land Tax
Register. He arrested the accused at 16.30 hours for having received bribe from Pw2. After
the incident was over, Ex.P13 Recovery Mahazar was prepared and in which the witness
Pw3, Pw22, Pw19 Inspector, Muthukeishnan, who prepared the Mahazar, and accused
signed on all the papers.
10. Pw19 inspected the said place, prepared Ex.P14 Observation Mahazar and
drew Ex.P18 Rough Sketch. He conducted search at the house of the accused at Keelapalur
village from 17.30 to 17.45 hours, after submitting necessary Ex.P19 Intimation to the
court, but nothing has been seized. He, the Official witnesses and the accused signed
Ex.P15 Search List, which he prepared. He came to the police station along with the
accused and properties to the police station at Trichy and sent the accused to Judicial
Custody and submitted the case properties through Ex.P20 Form 95. He altered the
provision from Sec.7 into Sec.7, 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
Ex.P21 is the Alteration Report. Subsequently, he placed the file before Pw20 Rengasamy,
Inspector, Trichy for investigation. The said Pw20 examined Pw2 C.Paramasivam, Pw3
J.Paramasivam, Pw22 Thangaraj, Head Constable Muthukrishnan, Constable
Sathyamoorthy and Inspector Govinidasamy and recorded their statements on 27.05.2004.
He examined Karuppaiyan, Govindasamy, Durai, Ariyamuthu and others on 29.05.2004.
He forwarded the solutions for Chemical Analysis Report through court on 11.06.2004.
After completing his investigation, he submitted his report to the Director, V& A.C.,
Chennai. He collected the patta transfer file of Vijayalakshmi from Pw19. Subsequently, he
handed over the file to Pw21 Prasannavenkatesh, Inspector, who on took up further
investigation on 20.05.2005, examined Pw1 Muniyasamy, R.D.O., Ariyalur, obtained Ex.P1
Sanction for Prosecution and recorded his statement. After completing all formalities, he
filed the final report under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act 1988.
11. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined
under Sec.313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. with regard to incrimination piece of evidence appearing
against him. He has stated that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are false and
examined Dw1 and Dw2 and exhibited no documentary evidence on his side.
12. Dw1 Nagarajan deposed that in year 2004 there was a street pipe fight
between his family and Muniyappan‟s family. His father Pichaipillai lodged complaint before
Vikkramangalam police station, but no action was taken. Thus, his father gave a complaint
before the accused, V.A.O., Muniyankurichi, who contacted the police and asked about the
action taken on the complaint of Pichaipillai. Immediately, the police took up the case and
arrested Muniyan and others. The said Muniyan and others approached the accused for
solvency certificates. The accused demanded patta pass book and kist receipt. For which,
they got angry and stated that you were always against us and you are the root cause for
their arrest and now delaying the bail and one day, you will be behind the bars. At that
time, Dw1 was present. In a few days, the accused was arrested by the Vigilance Police. His
opponents are liable for the arrest of the accused, who is his relative and the accused never
demanded bribe from anybody. Dw2 Govindarasu deposed that in the year 2004 he went to
V.A.O. Office to get community certificate for his son. At that time, about 10 persons were
present to get solvency certificates. The accused was preparing the solvency certificates
after verifying their ration cards. After completion, they gave money, but the accused
refused to receive it. They kept the money on his table. Immediately, the Vigilance Police
entered and arrested him.
13. After hearing the prosecution case, the point that arises for determination is
as to whether the prosecution has proved their case beyond all reasonable doubt against
the accused for the offences under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
14. Case of Prosecution:- According to the prosecution that the accused

Narayanan, V.A.O., Reddipalayam, Ariyalur Taluk, being a public servant, demanded bribe
of Rs.800/- on 21.05.2004 at 12.00 noon and obtained the same on 26.05.2004 at 03.00
p.m. for himself as gratification, other than legal remuneration from Pw2 C.Paramasivam as
a motive or reward for the purpose of issuing 8 solvency certificates by corrupt or illegal
means and as such, he is liable to be punished under Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
15. The accused has taken the following defences:-

1. Sanction for prosecution is not proper and valid;
2. Pw2, the defacto complainant turned hostile;
3. Oral evidence of Dw1 and Dw2 are trustworthy;
4. Not claiming T.A. & D.A. by Pw3 and Kanagaraj; and
5. The statement of accused was not recorded.
16. Admitted Facts:- The accused was working as V.A.O., Reddipalayam,

Ariyalur District. Pw2 C.Paramasivam is the resident of Muniyankurichi Village.
Sengamalam, W/o.Muniyappan and Lakshmi, W/o. Durairaj made oral fight on 08.05.2004
at water pipe regarding drawing of water and subsequently there was an fisticuff between
them. Consequently, one Pichaipillai, F/o. Lakshmi lodged complaint before

Vikkramangalam police station in Cr.No.181 of 2004 against Pw2‟s friends Muniyappan,
Sengamalam, Murugesan, Ulaganathan and Muthusamy, in which Murugesan, Pw15
Ulaganathan, Pw14 Muniyappan and Muthusamy were arrested and sent to Judicial
custody on 21.05.2004. Pw10 Sengamalam requested Pw2 to arrange for surety certificates
to get bail. When Pw2 contacted his counsel, they advised to get 2 solvency certificates from
V.A.O. for each accused. Consequently, Pw2 approached the accused along 8 sureties for
obtaining solvency certificates. No dispute with regard to the above facts spoken by the
witnesses. Even though, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses, Pw1 is Sanction
Authority. Pw2 is defacto complainant. Pw3 and Pw22 are Official witnesses. Pw19 to Pw21
are Police Officers. Pw4 Karuppaiya, Pw5 Govindasamy, Pw6 Ariyamuthu, Pw7
Mathiyazhagan, Pw8 Muniyappan, Pw9 Chinnasamy, Pw12 Veeramuthu and Pw13 Durai
are sureties and Pw11 Pugazhendhi is Firka Surveyor. They were present during trap
proceedings. They alone are material witnesses. Pw16 Vishalaktchi is Scientific Assistant.
Pw10 Sengamalam, Pw14 Muniyappan, Pw15 Ulaganathan, Pw17 Rajendran and Pw18
Rengasamy are not material witnesses.
17. Burden:- According to the prosecution, the accused demanded Rs.800/-

towards bribe on 21.05.2004 at 12.00 Noon for the purpose of issuing solevency cerficates
from Pw2 C.Paramasivam, who gave Ex.P2 Complaint, trap was laid, the accused accepted
the bribe amount on 26.05.2004 at 03.00 p.m. and as such, the accused was caught in red
handed. As the accused denied the demand of bribe money of Rs.800/- on 21.05.2004,
receipt of M.O.1 Rs.800/- on 26.05.2004, the said money seized by Pw19 Inspector of Police
through Ex.P5 Mahazar from the accused, preparation of M.O.3 Solution and the said
procedures adopted by the investigation agency, now, the burden is on the prosecution to
prove that the accused demanded and received Rs.800/- as bribe money.
18. The Addl. Public Prosecutor has also submitted the following citations to
support his argument that as per Sec.20 of Prevention of Corruption of Act, when the
prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money from the
accused, the court can draw legal presumption:-
1. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs P.Venkateshwarlu (2015) 3 MLJ (Crl) 225 (SC)
2. Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab (2015) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC)
3. K.S.Panduranga Vs State of Karnataka (2013) 2 MLJ (Crl) 80 (SC)
4. Sayeed Shabiralli Hatizali Vs State of Maharashtra (2009 Cri.L.J. 2965 (SC)
5. S.Rangarajan Vs State rep. by DSP, V&AC, Salem (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 939
6. State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Shambhu Daya Nagar (2007) 2 MLJ (Crl) 561
(SC)
7. Shaik Abdul Salam Vs State of Andra Pradesh (2006 Crl.L.J. 22 (AP HC))
8. V.Kasi Vs State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Inspector of Police V&AC

Department, Dharmapuri (2003) MLJ (Crl) 454
9. State of A.P. Vs C.Uma Mahjeswara Rao and another 2004 Cri.L.J. 2004 (SC)
10. Biranchi Naryan Mohanty Vs State of Orissa (2002 (SC) Crl. 562)
11. M.Narsinga Rao Vs State of A.P. (2001 Crl.L.J. 515 (SC))
12. Madhukar Bhaskakrrao Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra (2001 Crl.L.J. 175

(SC))
13. State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs Shri Ram Singh (AIR 2000 S.C.
870)
14. C.K.Damodaran Nair Vs Government of India (AIR 1997 (SC) 551)
The defence counsel has also not disputed the aforesaid principles. The question is
whether the prosecution has proved the said ingredients and raised legal presumption,
which is compulsory, not discretionary.
19. Sanction for prosecution:- According to prosecution, Pw1 Muniyasamy,

R.D.O., Ariyalur District issued Ex.P1 Sanction for prosecution against the accused. Pw1
also deposed that he received the file of the accused in respect of Cr.No.3 of 2004 from the
Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Chennai; after perusing the requisition letter,
F.I.R., Statement of the accused, Statements of the witnesses, Entrustment Mahazar,
Seizure Mahazar, Observation Mahazar, Chemical Analysis Report and all relevant records,
he issued Ex.P1 Order. During cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know the
date of perusal of file; and he failed to mention that he dictated the contents in the sanction
order to the typist, who typed Ex.P1. Referring those cross-examinations, the defence
counsel argued that Pw1 did not apply his mind before granting permission. However, Pw1
specifically deposed that after perusing the records and applying his mind, he issued
sanction order Ex.P1. Merely because, he failed to remember the contents of the statements
of the defacto complainant and contents in solvency certificates, it cannot be said that did
not apply his mind and Ex.P1 is not valid. The nature of accusation, reason for arrest,
offences charged and prima facie case against accused alone are sufficient to grant sanction
order. Those facts are also spoken by Pw1 and as such, the citation submitted by the
defence counsel reported in L.Venkatesan Vs State, rep. by A.D.S.P., V & A.C.,
Virudunagar, Crl.A.(M.D.) No.333/2009, dated 13.03.2013, Fathima and Others Vs
The Inspector of Police, V & A.C., Virudunagar, Crl.A.(M.D.) No.365 & 379 of 2009,
dated 23.09.2013, Gunalan & another Vs State by D.S.P., V & A.C. Erode (2012 (1)
L.W. (Crl.) 303) and P.L.Tatwal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2014 S.A.R. 620) is not
applicable on facts.
20. It is further argued that Pw1 has no materials to show that he is entitled to
remove the person/V.A.O., who is employed through T.N.P.S.C. and received appointment
from the District Collector. Referring the cross-examination, the defence counsel argued
that since the petitioner was appointed by the T.N.P.S.C. and appointment order was issued
by the District Collector, they are the competent authorities to remove the accused from
service and Pw1 has no power to grant sanction order for prosecution, who did not apply
his mind before granting permission. However, Pw1 specifically deposed that after perusing
the records and applying his mind, he issued sanction order Ex.P1. At this juncture, this
court feels that it is proper to refer Sec.2(b) of Tamil Nadu Abolition of Posts of Part Time
Village Officers Act (3 of 1981) reveals that the competent authority is Revenue Divisional
Officer and also to rely upon the citations reported in Baskaran Vs State, Through The
Inspector, V. & A.C., Madurai, (Crl.R.C.(MD)NO.645 of 2011) dated 01.07.2015, which
mandates thus: “13. In the case on hand, since the Revenue Divisional Officer is the
statutory authority, who has got competence to appoint a Village Administrative Officer, he
has got power to remove such Village Administrative Officer from his post. Thus, it is crystal
clear that the sanctioning authority for the purposes of Sec.19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act in respect of a Village Administrative Officer is only the Revenue Divisional
Officer of the Division concerned.” Thus, it is clear that Pw1 R.D.O. is competent to issue
Ex.P1 Sanction Order for prosecution against the accused/V.A.O. Considering all aspects,
this court is of the view that the sanction for prosecution is proper.
21. First Demand:- According to prosecution, the accused demanded

Rs.800/- from Pw2 C.Paramasivam on 21.05.2004 at 12.00 noon for the purpose of issuing
8 solvency certificates. Pw2 also specifically deposed that Pw10 Sengamalam, wife of
Muniyappan and Durai Raj‟s wife made oral fight on 08.05.2004 at water pipe and
subsequently there was an fisticuff between them; consequently, Durairaj lodged complaint
before Vikkramangalam police station in Cr.No.181 of 2004 against Pw2‟s friends
Muniyappan, Sengamalam, Murugesan, Ulaganathan and Muthusamy, in which
Murugesan, Ulaganathan, Muniyappan and Muthusamy were arrested and sent to Judicial
custody on 21.05.2004; Sengamalam requested him to prepare solvency certificates for bail;
when Pw2 contacted his counsel, they advised to get 2 solvency certificates from V.A.O. for
each accused; thus, Pw12 Veeramuthu and Pw9 Chinnasamy went to the office of the
accused at 21.05.2004 at 12.00 noon; the accused demanded Rs.100/- per certificate, in
total Rs.800/- from them; in spite of their request in making payment, the accused strictly
said that without the payment, he would not issue such certificates; consequently, they
advised him to lodged a complaint; and catch the accused, thus, he gave the complaint to
Vigilance Police. Pw3 and Pw22 categorically stated that they were told by Pw2 that the
accused demanded bribe of Rs.800/- for issuing 8 solvency certificates. It is true that Pw2
stated that Pw12 and Pw9 approached the accused, which is contrary to his Ex.P2
Complaint. However, this court feels that the oral evidence of Pw3 and Pw22 and Ex.P2
Complaint, which has been duly proved through Pw2, would go to show that the accused
demanded bribe. Pw2 has been turned hostile by the prosecution. Thus, the oral evidence of
Pw3 and Pw22 assumes much importance. Pw3 and Pw22 also denied the suggestion put to
them during cross examination that the police did not introduce them to Pw2 Paramasivam;
and they did not read the contents of the Complaint and F.I.R. The oral evidence of Pw2,
Pw3 and Pw22, against whom no enmity has been proved, that the accused demanded
money has to be looked into seriously, not minor discrepancies. Apart from their evidence,
Pw19 Inspector also deposed that he received the complaint from Pw2 and lodged F.I.R. and
verified the statement of Pw2, which reveals that the accused demanded money.
Considering all aspects, this court finds that the accused demanded Rs.800/- from Pw2 for
doing an official work.
22. Second Demand:- According to prosecution, the accused demanded

Rs.800/- from Pw2 in the presence of Pw3 on 26.05.2004 at 03.00 p.m. at V.A.O. Office,
Reddipalayam. Pw2 deposed that when they entered, the accused came out from his office
to wash his hands after taking lunch; they gave patta pass books to the accused; the
accused prepared solvency certificates and handed over to him; when he gave Rs.800/-, the
accused expressed that he was fearing to receive the money and whether they met Vigilance
Police and also refused to receive the money; he replied that he did not go to Vigilance
Police; since, the accused again refused to receive the money, he passed the money to Pw12
Veeramuthu and asked him to hand over to the accused, who stated that it was kept over
the table of the accused; and after verifying the same with Veeramuthu, he made the signal
as already instructed by Pw19. Pw3 deposed that when they entered V.A.O. Office the
accused also entered after washing his hands; he asked about him with Pw2; Pw2 replied
that he is the relative of Murugesan in Jail; initially the accused refused to receive money;
Pw2 requested the accused to prepare solvency certificates for all after receiving the money;
the accused instructed him to place over his table without touching it; Pw2 kept 8 x 100/-
Rupees over his table; the accused gave solvency certificates without taking the said money;
and he others came out after obtaining solvency certificates; and Pw2 made signal by tying
the towel over his head. Pw22 deposed that while Pw19 Inspector examined Pw2 and Pw3,
they stated that when they entered into the V.A.O. Office along with sureties and gave patta
pass book to prepare solvency certificates, the accused prepare the same for each sureties;
Pw2 Paramasivam gave money to the accused, but he refused stating that he is fearing of
any complaint before Vigilance Police and instructed them to place the money over his
table; consequently, and Pw2 kept the money over his table. Pw22 specifically stated that
when first time Pw2 and Pw3 went inside, they did not speak with the accused; they
returned after verifying the presence of the accused; when they entered second time, the
accused demanded bribe amount and Pw2 replied that he had brought; and when they
entered 3rd time, the sureties were also accompanied with them. He further explained that
when Pw2 and Pw3 entered along with sureties, no police were accompanied with them.
From the oral evidence of Pw22, it is clear that the police were not present during second
demand and acceptance. The police went inside only along with Pw22 and Inspector. Pw22
specifically denied the suggestion put him during cross-examination that he did not go to
the accused office at Reddipalayam; he put signatures in the police station; he spoke lie as
tutored by the police; the accused never demanded bribe; and accused never stated that he
was fearing to receive bribe. By way of denying all the said suggestions, Pw22 forced this
court to disbelieve the story of the accused. Moreover, Pw22 specifically stated that he was
told by Pw2 and Pw3 that the accused did not receive the money, but they placed over his
table. From the oral evidence of those witnesses, one thing is clear that the accused
demanded money from Pw2 and the second demand was witnessed by Pw3 also, which
forced this court to believe that Pw2 and Pw3 went to V.A.O. Office. Nothing worth
mentioning is elicited during cross examination of Pw2 and Pw3 against the prosecution
case. Considering all aspects, this court finds that the accused second time demanded
Rs.800/- from Pw2 for doing his official work.
23. Acceptance of bribe:- According to prosecution, the accused accepted

Rs.800/- from Pw2 towards bribe on 26.05.2004. Pw2 deposed that when he gave Rs.800/-,
the accused expressed that he was fearing to receive the money and whether they met
Vigilance Police and refused to receive the money; he replied that he did not go to Vigilance
Police; since, the accused again refused to receive the money, he passed the money to Pw12
Veeramuthu and asked him to hand over to the accused, who stated that it was kept over
the table of the accused. Pw3 deposed that initially, the accused refused to receive the
money from Pw2, but Pw2 insisted him to receive the money and issue the solvency
certificates; then, the accused instructed Pw2 to place the money on his table; Pw2 kept the
money on the table. Pw22 also corroborated the oral testimony of Pw3 that he was told by
him about demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Pw4 Karuppaiah, one of the
sureties deposed that Pw2 Paramasivam gave Rs.800/- to the accused, who instructed him
to place the same on his table. In the course of cross examination, Pw4 deposed that Pw2
Paramasivam gave the money to Pw11 Veeramuthu, who placed over the table of the
accused. Even though, Pw4 gave contradictory evidence, it is clear that on the direction of
the accused, the money was placed over his table. Pw5 Govindasamy, one of the sureties
deposed that Pw2 Paramasivam gave Rs.800/- to the accused, who instructed him to place
the same on his table. Pw6 Ariyamuthu deposed that he was told by Pw2 Paramasivam that
the accused demanded money, but he did not see the payment made to the accused. Pw7
Mathiyalagan deposed that no money was given in his presence, but he was told by Pw2
Paramasivam that the accused demanded money. Admittedly, V.A.O. office is a small room
and all the persons cannot be accommodated at one time. There are oral evidence to the
effect that few sureties were standing out side. Pw9 Chinnasamy, one of the sureties
deposed that no money was asked from him, but he was told by Pw2 Paramasivam that the
accused demanded money. Pw15 Durai, one of the sureties deposed that Pw2 Paramasivam
placed Rs.800/- on the table of the accused. All the said witnesses stated that money was
placed on the table of the accused on his instruction. Dw2 Govindarasu deposed that the
accused was preparing the solvency certificates after verifying their ration cards; after
completion, they gave money, but the accused refused to receive it; they kept the money on
his table; and immediately, the Vigilance Police entered and arrested him. Even though,
Pw11 Pugalenthi, Firka Surveyor was turned hostile, he clearly deposed that Pw2
C.Paramasivam placed Rs.800/- over the table of the accused. If really, the accused had no
intention to receive the bribe, he should have returned the same to Pw2 or Veeramuthu. No
evidence has been placed by the accused that he attempted to return the amount or gave
direction of Pw2 or Veeramuthu to take back the money placed on his table. That was
expected from the accused or from a prudent man. Pw11 Pugalenthi also did not speak
about the reaction taken by the accused, after the money was placed by Pw2 or
Veeramuthu. They have stated that the accused did not demand any money. But, the oral
evidence of Pw11 and Dw2 reveal that Pw2 placed the money over the table of the accused.
They further stated that the accused instead of receiving the money by his hand, instructed
them to place over his table and he would take later. Unfortunately, he was arrested before
the money was taken by him. In the absence of any evidence from Pw11 Pugalenthi and
Dw2 Govindarasu, the accused cannot say that he had no intention to receive the money or
accept the money kept over his table. If really, the bribe money was placed over his table
without his knowledge or consent, he should have shocked and attempted to return it or got
angry over Pw2 or Veeramuthu. No such shocking face or angry face of accused was seen or
spoken by his own witnesses and the prosecution witnesses. Merely because Pw8
Muniammal, Pw10 Sengamalam, Pw11 Pugalenthi and Pw12 Veeramuthu were turned
hostile with respect to demand and acceptance, the oral evidence of Pw2, Pw3, Pw22, Pw4,
Pw5, Pw6, Pw7, Pw9 and Pw15 would to show that the accused accepted the bribe by giving
an instruction to place the same on his table. It is true that the money was not touched by
the accused and as such, the solution test was negative. However, this court feels that not
touching the money is not a criteria, but his intention to accept the money and his
subsequent reaction after the money was placed assumes importance. As already stated
above, the accused had a doubt over Pw2 that whether he might have met the vigilance
police. Pw2 and Pw3 gave concrete evidence that the accused was fearing to receive the
money and asked to them whether they met Vigilance Police. After verifying with Pw2 that
he did not go to Vigilance Police, he asked him to place the money over his tale and he
would take later. If really, the accused had no intention to receive the said tainted notes, he
would have taken steps to return the same to Pw2 or at least shouted against him. No
explanation has been offered by the accused regarding accepting the money kept over his
table. In the absence of evidence, the accused cannot say that there was no acceptance.
Thus, the acceptance of the amount by the accused is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
24. Recovery:- According to prosecution, the tainted amount of Rs.800/- was

recovered from the table of the accused on 26.05.2004 in the presence of Pw3 and Pw22.
Pw2 deposed that as per the instruction of the accused, he put the tainted currency notes
on his table and made the signal as already instructed by Pw19; the police rushed to the
place; and caught the accused in red handed. Pw3 deposed that he and Paramasivam
identified the accused; the Inspector introduced himself; the accused tendered his apology;
the accused handed over the tainted notes M.O.1 (8 x Rs.100/-); the serial numbers were
compared with the Mahazar by Pw3 and Pw22; and serial numbers were tallied. Pw22
deposed that when they entered into the V.A.O. office, the accused was sitting facing east;
Surveyor Pugalenthi also was sitting along with him; Pw2 Paramasivam and Pw3
Paramasivam identified the accused to him and the Inspector; the Inspector introduced
himself and others to the accused; he was shocked and sweating; the Inspector pacified
him; solutions were prepared; both hand of the accused were dipped into the solution, but
there was no change in colour; Inspector asked about the money; the accused replied that
he did not receive any money, but Pw2 placed the money over his table; the Inspector seized
the said Rs.800/- from the table of the accused. It is true that Pw22 deposed during cross
examination that he is ignorant of:- 1. Nature of building, where they hide themselves to
watch the trap proceedings, 2. Day of trap proceedings, 3. Physical Structures of Pw2 and
Pw3, 4. Fans in the V.A.O. Office, 5. Sodium Carbonate, 6. Phenolphthalein, 7. Where they
were kept, 8. Quantity, 9. How many cars in police office, 10. Colour of the cars, which they
used for trap proceedings, 11. Where Roof of the car was cloth or tin?, 12. Colour of the car
name board, 13. How many police came in car? 14. How many police came through bus?,
15. Roll Number of the constables? 16. Things brought by the police, 17. Type of seal used
for solution bottles, 18. Whether seal put after or before affixing lable? Merely because,
Pw22 did not know the said particulars, it cannot be said that he was not accompanying
with the police for trap proceedings. The trap was on 26.05.2004 and Pw22 was examined
on 13.11.2017. No normal man would keep those facts in memory for 13 years. Pw19
Inspector and Pw20 Investigating Officer also corroborated the said testimony of Pw3 and
Pw22 about recovery. Nothing worthing mentioning is elicited during cross-examination of
Pw3, Pw22, Pw19 to Pw21 in favour of the accused. According to the defence counsel that
Pw2 kept the money without the knowledge of the accused, who did not touch it and as
such, there was no change in solution colour. Pw19 to Pw21 Inspectors also admitted the
said version of accused given to him during investigation. From the said suggestion, it is
clear that Rs.800/- was recovered from the table of the accused, which was placed by Pw2.
If really, the accused had no intention to receive the said tainted notes, he would have
taken steps to return the same to Pw2 or at least shouted against him. No explanation has
been offered by the accused regarding accepting the money kept over his table. In the
absence of evidence, the accused cannot say that the recovery was dubious. The defence
counsel has relied upon the citation reported in A.Sivasamy Vs State, rep. By Inspector
of Police, V & A.C., Coimbatore (Crl.A.No.381 of 2004, dated 11.07.2011) and argued
that demand, acceptance and recovery has been doubtful and accused not touched the
money, he is entitled to acquittal. Considering all aspects, this court is of the view that the
prosecution has proved the recovery of tainted money from the accused and as such, the
aforesaid citation submitted by the accused even though good law on principle, they are not
applicable to the fact on hand on four. Thus, the demand, as well as the acceptance of the
amount by the accused and the recovery of the same from his table are proved beyond any
reasonable doubt. Before this court also, no argument was advanced, as if M.O.1 amount
was not recovered from the table of the accused.
25. Pw2, the defacto complainant turned hostile:- The next aspect, which
requires to be adverted to is whether testimony of Pw2, a hostile evidence that has come on
record should be relied upon or not? In this regard, reference to the authority in Vinod
Kumar Vs State of Punjab (2015) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC) would be apt. Apart from above, it
is further put forth by the accused that as Pw2 has not supported the prosecution story
and his whole testimony should have been thrown out of consideration and no reliance
should have been placed on it. The defence counsel would contend, solely on the of evidence
of recovery, a conviction is not sustainable and in the obtaining factual matrix, the
presumption under Section 20 of the Act would not be attracted. To substantiate the said
proposition, strength has been drawn from Shanthilal Rameshwar Vs State of Rajasthan
(1976 Cr.L.J. 625), R.Sankara Karuppasamy Vs State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Vs&
A.C. Wing, Virudhunagar (Crl. A. (M.D.) No.80 of 2007, dated 19.12.2011) and
R.Gunalan and another Vs State, rep. by D.S.P., Vs& A.C. Wing, Erode (2012 (1) L.W.
(Cri) 303) and 2014 (2) M.L.J. (Cri) 358. Per contra, the Addl. Public Prosecutor argued
that for a conviction under P.C. Act can be based on the evidence of trap witnesses, if they
are trustworthy and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied. It is also canvassed by him
that the evidence of the hostile witness can be placed reliance upon by the prosecution and
in the obtaining factual matrix, the testimony of Pw3, one of the shadow witnesses, renders
immense assistance for establishing the case of the prosecution.
26. The defence counsel would contend that as Pw2 has totally resiled in his chief
and cross-examination, his evidence is to be discarded in toto. On a perusal of the
testimony of the said witness, it is evincible that in examination-in-chief, he has supported
the prosecution story in entirety and in the cross-examination he has taken the path of
prevarication only with regard to handing over the bribe money. In Vinod Kumar Case, it
has been laid down that even if a witness is characterised has a hostile witness, his
evidence is not completely effaced. The said evidence remains admissible in the trial and
there is no legal bar to base a conviction upon his testimony, if corroborated by other
reliable evidence. It is further opined that the evidence of such a witness cannot be effaced
or washed off the record altogether, but the same can be accepted to the extent it is found
to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. The law is also settled thatboth the
prosecution and the defence can rely the said hostile evidence for their stand and stance.
As a contention has been raised that once Pw2, the informant has resiled totally from his
earlier statement no conviction can be recorded on the basis of evidence of the trap
witnesses, it required to be carefully dwelled upon. There can be no quarrel over the
proposition that on the basis of mere recovery an accused cannot be found guilty. It is the
settled principle of law that mere recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to record a
conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded or money was paid
voluntarily as bribe. In the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the
amount as illegal gratification, recovery would not alone be a ground to convict the accused.
The law is also settled that the status of the trap witnesses Pw3 and Pw22 is that of an
interested witnesses and their testimony, to be accepted and relied upon requires
corroboration and the corroboration would depend upon the facts and circumstances,
nature of the crime and the character of the trap witnesses.
27. As already stated above, the trap witnesses Pw3 and Pw22 gave clear, cogent
and trustworthy evidence regarding second demand, acceptance and recovery. The
Inspector of Police, who has been examined as P.W.19, has categorically picturised and
demonstrated, how the subsequent actions were taken by him. P.W.19 would state, on
receipt of the copy of Ex.P2, official witnesses viz. Pw3 and Pw22 were secured and they
were introduced to Pw2, in whose presence Rs.800/- viz. 8 x Rs.100/-, was handed over. He
has further stated about the information furnished by him to the complainant as well as the
witnesses, about the significance of coating Phenolphthalein powder and the reaction of
Sodium Carbonate solution by immersing the hands of a person, who touched the
Phenolphthalein powder etc. For that also, Ex.P4 Mahazar was prepared. Thereafter, as
spoken to by P.W.19, the defacto-complainant, Pw3 and Pw22 arrived nearby the office of
the accused and he further spoke how P.W.3 and the defacto-complainant went to the office
of the accused. The said evidence, adduced by Pw2, Pw3 and Pw22, also not under
challenge.
28. Further, Pw2 and Pw3 have categorically deposed that after obtaining signal,
they went to office of the accused at Reddipalayam village headed by Pw19 Inspector,
identification of the accused by Pw2, recovery of Rs.800/- from the table of the accused,
witnessing the accused, who was very much perturbed and was found sweating and
severing, preparation of Ex.P5 Mahazar in the presence of accused and Pw3 and Pw22,
putting their signatures in Mahazar, seizure of records, arrest of the accused and their
statements recorded by Pw20 Investigating Officer. While considering the explanation
offered by the accused, for accepting the amount, as well as for the recovery, the above facts
should be remembered and that is why, despite the fact, no argument was advanced,
questioning the evidence of Pw2, Pw3, Pw22 and Pw19, this court took the strain and
analysing the evidence, comes to the conclusion that the amount was placed over the table
of the accused, where from alone, the amount was recovered. From the above oral and
documentary evidence, this court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the earlier
demand, pre-trap proceedings, demand and acceptance, recovery of tainted money from the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the accused cannot say that demand for bribe
not proved that when the demand for bribe is not proved, the explanation offered by the
accused as to how the tainted currency notes came into his table or possession has to be
accepted, cannot be countenanced. Now, the burden shifts to the accused to establish that
Rs.800/- was placed by Pw2 C.Paramasivam over the table of the accused without his
knowledge. But, absolutely, no evidence to that effect. No steps have been taken to prove
the alleged fact by the accused. Pw2 and Pw3 specifically denied the said facts during their
cross-examination. In the absence of evidence, the accused cannot say that the tainted
money was forcibly kept by Pw2 over the table of the accused.
29. The fact remains that Pw3 and Pw22 have supported the acceptance and
recovery in entirety. They have stood firm and remained unshaken in the cross-examination
and nothing has been elicited to dislodge their testimony. Their evidence has to be
appreciated regard being had to what has been happened during trap proceedings. Thus,
from the aforesaid testimony it is absolutely clear that they have supported in entirety
about the demand, acceptance and recovery of money. Reading the evidence in entirety, the
evidence of Pw2 cannot be brushed aside. The accused was caught red-handed with those
currency notes. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he has taken the
plea that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to animosity. No explanation
has been given as regards the recovery. Therefore, from the above facts, legitimately a
presumption can be drawn that the accused had received or accepted the said currency
notes on his own volition. The factum of presumption and the testimony of Pw3 and Pw22
go a long way to show that the prosecution has been able to prove demand, acceptance and
recovery of the amount. Hence, this court inclines to hold that the charges leveled against
the accused have duly been proven by the prosecution. It is not a case that there is no other
evidence barring the evidence there are of the adequate circumstances which establish the
ingredients of the offences in respect of which, the accused was charged. Thus, this court
finds that the accused fails to disprove the presumption and the prosecution has proved
that the accused received the amount towards gratification.
30. Whether Oral Evidence of Dw1 is trustworthy:- It is true that Dw1

Nagarajan deposed that in year 2004, there was a street pipe fight between his family and
Muniyappan‟s family; his father Pichaipillai lodged complaint before Vikkramangalam police
station, but no action was taken, thus, his father gave a complaint before the accused,
V.A.O., Muniyankurichi, who contacted the police and asked about the action taken on the
complaint of Pichaipillai; immediately, the police took up the case and arrested Muniyan
and others; the said Muniyan and others approached the accused for solvency certificates;
the accused demanded patta pass book and kist receipt; for which, they got angry and
stated that you were always against us and you are the root cause for their arrest and now
delaying the bail and one day, you will be behind the bars; and in a few days, the accused
was arrested by the Vigilance Police. However, no suggestion was put to Pw2 with regard to
the said enmity. No complaint lodged by Dw1‟s father has been produced by the accused.
No police officer has been examined to prove that the accused/V.A.O. instructed them to
lodge the complaint of Dw1‟s father and take action against Muniyan. If really, the
Pichaipillai gave complaint to the accused, the same can be produced before this court. If
the accused gave any direction, the same can be proved by producing the copy of F.I.R.
Further more, the accused is not a higher official to direct the police to lodge F.I.R. and
arrest the opponents of Pichaipillai. Not producing those records would go to show that the
oral evidence of Dw1 is not trustworthy.
31. Not claiming T.A. & D.A. by Pw3 and Pw22:- Pw3 Paramasivam and Pw22
Thangaraj are Government Officials of different departments. They were called by Pw19 as
witnesses for pre-trap proceedings, demand and acceptance of bribe and recovery of tainted
money from the accused. Pw22 deposed during cross examination that the Vigilance Police
requested his Higher Official to send him as official witness; his higher official instructed
him on 25.05.2004 to go V.&A.C. Police Station on the next day at 08.00 a.m.; he was
granted an written order to accompany as official witness by his higher official, but he did
not hand over the same to the police; the said police also did not collect the same from him;
in the Attendance Register, his absence was mentioned as „OD‟; and he did not know
whether the Inspector seized the said Attendance Register. During his cross examination
also, he specifically denied that he had been visiting to the said police station, which is
situated very near to his office and as such, he has been telling lie in support of the police.
Surprisingly, the said questions were not asked to Pw3 Paramasivam. The only question put
to him was that his office is situated within 150 to 200 meter from V.& A.C. Police Station.
Pw19 Govindasamy, Inspector deposed during his cross examination that he sent
requisition to the higher officials of Pw3 and Pw22 through phone, which are situated
within 200 meter from the police station. He specifically denied that they are interested
witnesses to the police and he took them without the knowledge of their higher officials. No
suggestion was put to Pw3, Pw22, Pw19 and Pw20 that whether Pw3 and Pw22 claimed any
T.A. and D.A. in respect of the visit to Pw19's office at Trichy and office of the accused at
Reddipalayam village and whether Pw3‟s and Pw22‟s attendance registers and T.A. and D.A.
bills were seized by the investigating officers. It is true that Pw19 and Pw20 have also not
collected those details from the office of Pw3 and Pw22. However, this court feels that Pw3
strongly supported the prosecution case and their presence with Pw2 and Pw19 at the office
of the accused. Not claiming T.A. and D.A. is also the discretion of Pw3 and Pw22. No one
can compel them to get the said benefits. When their evidence is clear, cogent and
trustworthy, the question of attendance register and T.A. and D.A. does not arise. It is for
their higher officers to look after the matter and grant T.A. and D.A. for the official work
assigned to them in assisting the police. If, prosecution case is thrown out for want of such
kind of evidence, a secret operation to trap the briber cannot be completed. No previous
enmity between the accused and Pw3 and Pw22 have been established during his cross-
examination. No suggestion was put to them. No intimacy between the police and Pw3 &
Pw22j have also been proved. Pw3 and Pw22 have no interest in falsely implicating the
accused, who is also a Government Servant. Thus, this court feels that not claiming T.A. &
D.A. would not shaken the prosecution case.
32. Statement of Accused not recorded:- The defence counsel argued that non
recording of statement of accused during trap proceedings is fatal to the prosecution case.
It is true that as per Rule 47 of D.V.A.C. Manual and citations reported in Venkatraj Vs
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, V & A.C. Wing, Virudhunagar (2012 (1) MWN (Crl)
448) and P.Paulraj Vs State, rep. by Inspector of Police, V & A.C. Wing, Thoothukudi
(2012 (3) MWN (Crl) Page 380), State, rep. by Inspector of Police, V & A.C. Wing,
Vellore Vs M.L.Rajan (2013 (2) L.W. (Cri.) 157), the accused was deprived of his valuable
opportunity to explain the truth and the genuineness of his case and as such, his
statement shall must be recorded. However, the law is also settled in K.Selvaraj and others
Vs The State (2004 Crl.L.J. 3754 (Mad)) and In Crl.OP.No.11171 of 2014 (Thyagarajan
Vs State by the Inspector of Police, V & A.C., Chennai), dated 05.01.2017 that non
compliance of Rules under Vigilance Manual does not in any way vitiate the proceedings as
they are only directory and not mandatory. Since, the demand, acceptance and recovery are
duly proved by the prosecution, the said not recording of statement is not fatal.
33. It is true that mere possession and recovery of tainted money without proof of
demand not sufficient to establish offence both under Sec.7 and 13(1) (d) (I) (ii). Only upon
proof of acceptance, presumption under Sec.20 as to receipt of gratification can be drawn.
Proof of acceptance can follow only when there is proof of demand. In the absence of same,
no presumption can be drawn under Sec.20. On the other hand, the law is also settled in
Leela Ram (D) through Duli Chand Vs State of Haryana (1999 MLJ Crl. 295 (SC)) and
Yogesh Singh Vs Mahabeer Singh & Others (2017 Cri.L.J. 291) S.C. that any irregularity
or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the
prosecution case; and minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments
do not affect the case of prosecution. In A.N.Venkatesh and another Vs State of
Karnataka (2005 SCC Crl.1938) that the effect of the criminal court should not be to prowl
and to find out imaginative doubts. Unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension, which
the judicial mind thinks, require consideration with objectivity, no benefit can be claimed
by the accused on the basis of some hypothetical proposition. No contrary opinion about
the aforesaid principles.
34. Conclusion:- The position in law, as laid down in cases involving the relevant
provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, that mere recovery of the tainted amount
is not a sine qua non for holding a person guilty under Sections 7, 11 and 13 of the Act.
The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi Vs. State of
Gujarat, (2012 (7) S.C.C. 80), that there has to be evidence adduced by the prosecution
that bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe. The demand and acceptance of the
amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was
illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts.
35. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009) 3 SCC
779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated: “It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn
under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accused charged with the offence could rebut
it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing
reliable evidence. If the accused fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and
then it can be held by the Court that the prosecution has and then it can be held by the
court that the prosecution has proved the accused received the amount towards
gratification.” In the instant case, the defense has raised various presumptions to disprove
the prosecution case. However, it has not been able to adduce evidence before this court, on
the basis of which the presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act could be rebutted. Thus,
the accused respondent has not successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of
the P.C. Act. The prosecution, on the other hand, has established the demand and
acceptance of the tainted money. The recovery also has gone unchallenged. Considering all
the above facts and circumstances including other attending circumstances of the case, it is
very very difficult to accept the explanation offered by the accused, though in the quoted
judgments above, when materials are available, the Hon'ble Courts have accepted the
explanation, which is not the case herein. Except the explanation offered, no other defence
was raised or argued before this court, questioning the case of the prosecution, including
the sanction, etc.,
36. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram
Singh, (2000) 5 SCC 88, that corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer,
which if not detected in time is sure to afflict the polity of the country leading to disastrous
consequences. It was ruled that corruption is like a plague which is not only contagious but
if not controlled spreads like fire in a jungle. It was proclaimed that corruption is opposed to
democracy and social order, being not only anti people but aimed and targeted against
them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage and therefore, unless it is
nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence, shaking the socio-
economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.
37. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subramanian Swamy Vs.
Director, Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 682, reiterated that
corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and
punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the Act 1988.
38. In State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (2006) 8 SCC 693, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while responding to the plea for a lenient view qua a charge of corruption
expressed its concern against rampant venality by public servant observed that the malady
is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social falenic of
efficiency in public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The need for public
servants to devote their sincere attention to the duties of the office was emphasized.
39. In fine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in State of Karnataka Vs Selvi.
J.Jayalalitha and Others that Corruption is a vice of insatiable avarice for self-
aggrandizement by the unscrupulous, taking unfair advantage of their power and authority
and those in public office also, in breach of the institutional norms, mostly backed by
minatory loyalists. Both the corrupt and the corrupter are indictable and answerable to the
society and the country as a whole.
40. Conviction:- The unshakable, clear, cogent and trustworthy oral

testimony of the Pw3 and Pw22 will make it clear that the occurrence, as alleged by the
prosecution, stands proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused, who, being the
Public Servant, demanded and obtained Rs.800/- for himself as gratification, other than
legal remuneration from Pw2 C.Paramasivam as a motive or reward for the purpose issuing
eight solvency certificates by corrupt and illegal means.Thus, this court is of the view that
the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of the accused Narayanan beyond
all reasonable doubts under Sec.7 and Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988.
41. Sentence:- When the accused is asked about the sentences to be imposed
against him, he stated that a lenient view may be taken.
42. The said explanation is not satisfactory. This court also feels that demanding
and receiving even Rs.1/- is corruption, which in a civilized society is a disease, like cancer
and enemy of nation. The value of currency is not important, but the intention to demand
and accept the bribe for doing his official duty is not tolerable. Having regard to totality of
circumstances of the present case, this court feels that ends of justice will be served, if the
accused is liable to be punished severely.
43. In the result, considering the nature and gravity of the offences, this
court is of the view that the accused is found guilty and sentencing him under
Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. to undergo five years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.8,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further one year simple
imprisonment under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and to undergo
seven years simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.8,000/-, in default of payment
of fine to undergo further one year simple imprisonment Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
said Act. Total Fine Rs.16,000/-. The sentences shall run concurrently. Set off is
allowed as per Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.
The material objects, namely M.O.I Cash of Rs.800/- is ordered to be returned

to Pw2 C.Paramasivam; and M.O.2 and M.O.3 Bottles are ordered to be confiscated to
state after destroying the solutions, after appeal time is completed.
Directly typed by me in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court,

this the Tuesday the 27th day of February 2018.
Sd/-A.S.Ravi, B.Sc., M.L.,
Ariyalur.
List of Prosecution witnesses:-
P.W.1 - Muniyasamy
P.W.2 - Paramasivam, Defacto Complainant
P.W.3 - J.Paramasivam, Junior Assistant
P.W.4 - Karuppaiya
P.W.5 - Govindasamy
P.W.6 - Ariyamuthu
P.W.7 - Mathiyazhagan
P.W.8 - Muniyappan
P.W.9 - Chinnasamy
P.W.10- Sengamalam
P.W.11- Pugazhendhi, Firka Surveyor

P.W.12- Veeramuthu
P.W.13- Durai
P.W.14- Muniyappan
P.W.15- Ulaganathan
P.W.16- Vishalatchi, Scientific Assistant
P.W.17- Rajendran
P.W.18- Rengasamy
P.W.19- Govindasamy, D.S.P.
P.W.20- Rengasamy, D.S.P.
P.W.21- Prasanna Venkatesh, Inspector
P.W.22- Thangaraj, Junior Assistant
List of Prosecution exhibits:-

Ex.P1 - Sanction Order for Prosecution
Ex.P2 - Complaint
Ex.P3 - Signature of Pw2 in F.I.R.
Ex.P4 - Entrustment Mahazar
Ex.P5 - V.A.O. Certificate for Paramasivam
Ex.P6 - V.A.O. Certificate for Karuppaiya
Ex.P7 - V.A.O. Certificate for Govindasamy
Ex.P8 - V.A.O. Certificate for Durai
Ex.P9 - V.A.O. Certificate for Ariyamuthu
Ex.P10 - V.A.O. Certificate for Mathiyazhagan
Ex.P11 - V.A.O. Certificate for Veeramuthu
Ex.P12 - V.A.O. Certificate for Muniyappan
Ex.P13 - Mahazar
Ex.P14 - Observation Mahazar
Ex.P15 – Search List
Ex.P16 - Chemical Analysis Report
Ex.P17 - Printed F.I.R.
Ex.P18 - Rough Sketch
Ex.P19 - Advance Intimation for Search
Ex.P20 – Form 95
Ex.P21 – Section Alteration Report
Ex.P22 – C.65 Challan Voucher Book
List of Material Objects of Prosecution:-

M.O.1 - Cash of 8 x Rs.100/-
M.O.2 - Solution Bottles „L‟
M.O.3 - Solution Bottle „R‟
List of Defence witnesses:-

D.W.1 - Nagarajan
D.W.2 - Govindarasu
List of Defence Exhibits:- Nil

Sd/-A.S.Ravi, B.Sc., M.L.,
Ariyalur.
Copy to:-
The Accused

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

State of T.N., rep by Inspector, V & A.C., Trichy Vs Narayanan Spl.C.No.

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE/SPECIAL JUDGE AT ARIYALUR

Tuesday, the 27th day of February 2018

Spl. Case No.01 of 2012

State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Inspector of Police.,

Sri. G.Kalai Gnanam, Additional Public Prosecutor

5. After examination of Pw1 to Pw10 and exhibition of Ex.P1 to Ex.P15, pending

6. The Prosecution, in proof of the said charges, examined 22 witnesses,

14. Case of Prosecution:- According to the prosecution that the accused

15. The accused has taken the following defences:-

16. Admitted Facts:- The accused was working as V.A.O., Reddipalayam,

them. Consequently, one Pichaipillai, F/o. Lakshmi lodged complaint before

17. Burden:- According to the prosecution, the accused demanded Rs.800/-

1. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs P.Venkateshwarlu (2015) 3 MLJ (Crl) 225 (SC)

2. Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab (2015) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 (SC)

3. K.S.Panduranga Vs State of Karnataka (2013) 2 MLJ (Crl) 80 (SC)

4. Sayeed Shabiralli Hatizali Vs State of Maharashtra (2009 Cri.L.J. 2965 (SC)

8. V.Kasi Vs State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Inspector of Police V&AC

11. M.Narsinga Rao Vs State of A.P. (2001 Crl.L.J. 515 (SC))

12. Madhukar Bhaskakrrao Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra (2001 Crl.L.J. 175

14. C.K.Damodaran Nair Vs Government of India (AIR 1997 (SC) 551)

19. Sanction for prosecution:- According to prosecution, Pw1 Muniyasamy,

21. First Demand:- According to prosecution, the accused demanded

22. Second Demand:- According to prosecution, the accused demanded

23. Acceptance of bribe:- According to prosecution, the accused accepted

24. Recovery:- According to prosecution, the tainted amount of Rs.800/- was

30. Whether Oral Evidence of Dw1 is trustworthy:- It is true that Dw1

40. Conviction:- The unshakable, clear, cogent and trustworthy oral

The material objects, namely M.O.I Cash of Rs.800/- is ordered to be returned

Directly typed by me in my laptop, corrected and pronounced by me in open court,

P.W.11- Pugazhendhi, Firka Surveyor

List of Prosecution exhibits:-

Ex.P22 – C.65 Challan Voucher Book

List of Material Objects of Prosecution:-

List of Defence witnesses:-

List of Defence Exhibits:- Nil

You might also like