Madras High Court
Fathima Beevi vs The Inspector Of Police on 28 August, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 25.02.2020
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.08.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015
Fathima Beevi ... Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Trichy. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying
to allow the appeal, to set aside the judgment imposed in Special Case
No.87 of 2011 by judgment dated 23.07.2015 passed by the Special
Judge (Vigilance and Anti Corruption), Tiruchirappalli and allow the
appear.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Senthilkumar
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi,
Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
*****
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, Tiruchirapalli in Special C.C.No.87 of 2011, dated 25.07.2015.
2.On conclusion of trial in Special C.C.No.87 of 2011, the http://www.judis.nic.in Page 1 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted her for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
(i)The appellant employed as Draftsman in Land Records, Musiri Taluk Office. PW2/Arulmoorthy, a resident of Soorampatty Village, Musiri Taluk needed a copy of FMB sketch to contest civil case filed by one Muthulakshmi, who had encroached the public road and constructed a house. PW2 gave an application to PW6/Deputy Tahsildar, Musiri, who initialled the same and asked PW2 to hand over the application to the appellant. The appellant gave a challan for remitting fee of Rs.20/- in State Bank of India for processing the application. On the same day, PW2 remitted the challan amount in the bank and handed over the application form and receipt of challan. At that time, the http://www.judis.nic.in Page 2 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 appellant demanded Rs.200/- as illegal gratification. PW2 questioned the same and informed that he would make a complaint to the superior officers, for which the appellant said this amount will be shared by superior officers. Thereafter, the demand was reduced to Rs.100/-. PW2 not willing to pay the bribe amount, on 10.12.2001 approached the respondent/PW12, lodged a complaint [Ex.P4] at about 12.00 noon.
PW12 on verification of the complaint, credentials of the appellant and after getting approval from the superior officers, registered an FIR [Ex.P16]. Thereafter, PW12 enlisted the service of two official witnesses namely PW3 and one Muthuraj, who reported to PW12. The official witnesses were introduced to PW2 and the nature of complaint was explained and their doubts were clarified. Further, the importance of trap was explained and recorded in the entrustment Mahazar [Ex.P6].
(ii)On completion of entrustment proceedings, the trap team proceeded to Musiri Taluk Office. PW2 and PW3 entered the office of the appellant at about 04.55 p.m. The appellant informed PW2 that the copy of FMB sketch is made ready. Since Tahsildar was not in the office and attending other duty he has not signed the same and PW2 was asked to come on the next day to collect FMB sketch. At that time, PW2 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 3 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 informed that he will not in a position to come the next day and asked the appellant to hand over FMB sketch to PW3 and further informed the money would be paid the next day when FMB sketch is handed over. The appellant insisted that the money to be paid immediately. PW2 took the tainted bribe amount of Rs.100/- handed over to the appellant. The appellant asked PW2 to keep the money between the files which was before her. Thereafter PW2 and PW3 came out, gave pre-arranged signal. PW12 along with trap team entered the office of the appellant. PW2 and PW3 informed the happenings and identified the appellant. PW2 asked to leave. In the presence of PW3, PW11 and one Muthuraj, the appellant was enquired. The appellant informed she did not make a demand and the money was given by PW2 on his own. Further she did not receive the bribe amount and it was placed in the file. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test on the hands of the appellant was conducted, no change in colour was noticed. The money was recovered from the files. The files where the money was placed wash was collected, subjected to phenolphthalein test, which proved positive. Thereafter, the accused was arrested, Recovery Mahazar [Ex.P10], Rough Sketch [Ex.P17] were prepared and witnesses were examined in the scene of occurrence and the house of the accused was searched. Thereafter, the investigation was http://www.judis.nic.in Page 4 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 handed over to PW13, who conducted further investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, received forensic report and obtained sanction order [Ex.P1].
(iii)On completion of investigation, filed charge sheet before the Special Judge, Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Tiruchirapalli. The learned trial Judge on conclusion of trial convicted the appellant and sentenced her as stated supra, against which the present appeal.
4.Before trial Court, prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 20 exhibits and 5 materials objects. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined and no exhibit marked.
5.On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C the appellant denied the charges. On appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, the trial Court under Judgment dated 23.07.2015, convicted the appellant.
6.The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant are http://www.judis.nic.in Page 5 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 as follows:-
(i)The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, the sanction accorded by PW1 is not proper. PW1 admitted that there is a delay of nearly one year in according sanction, PW1 admitted that he referred to the earlier sanction orders and thereafter accorded sanction [Ex.P1]. Hence, PW1 has not acted independently and applied his mind. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW2, the decoy on 06.12.2001 approached PW6/the Headquarters Tahsildar, Musiri and presented Ex.P2/application for FMB sketch for survey No.542/11 at Soorampatty Village. PW6 received the application form, made initial, directed PW2 to submit to the appellant. PW2 approached the appellant on the same day. The appellant filled the voucher for Rs.20/- and gave it to the appellant to remit for official fee.
PW2 remitted the fee in State Bank of India. Thereafter PW2 along with bank challan and Ex.P2 approached the appellant. The appellant informed that FMB sketch would be made ready and asked him to come later. PW2 insisted that immediately he needed FMB sketch, since the hearing of civil suit filed by Muthulakshmi against him was coming up before the learned District Munsif Court, Musiri on 06.12.2001. The appellant stated that time would be taken for preparation of FMB sketch, http://www.judis.nic.in Page 6 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 further it has to be signed by Tahsildar, PW2 got offended. The appellant had not demanded any bribe, PW2 lodged a complaint to PW12 as though the appellant made demand of Rs.200/- as bribe and later, reduced to Rs.100/- to issue FMB sketch. The role of the appellant as Draftsman is only to prepare FMB sketch and forward to Tahsildar, who is the authority to sign and issue the same. The respondent without ascertaining the reason for non issuance of FMB sketch immediately proceeded with the complaint of PW2.
(ii)The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant had not received the bribe amount [MO1] in person which is an admitted fact. PW2 and PW3 admitted that PW12/TLO during entrustment informed to somehow handover the bribe amount, if the appellant demanded or not, PW2 to act as per his wish. In this case, there is no demand by the appellant which is admitted by PW2 and PW3. From the evidence of PW3, it is seen that PW2 on his own placed in the bribe amount and there is no demand. Further it is seen that when PW2 enquired about FMB sketch, the appellant had stood up on the chair for taking Ex.P2 and FMB sketch from the Almarah. During that time, the bribe amount was placed between the files without the knowledge of the http://www.judis.nic.in Page 7 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 appellant. The appellant getting up and taking Ex.P2 from Almarah is admitted by PW2 and PW3. Further when PW12 entered the office of the appellant, the appellant took Ex.P2 from Almarah, which is recorded in Ex.P10. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to Ex.P2 kept in Almarah and the appellant taking out from there. Thus without the knowledge of the appellant, PW2 placed the trap amount between the files to implicate her in this case, PW12 failed to ascertain these facts.
(iii)PW1, PW2, PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 admitted that the appellant gave an explanation, that she has not made any demand, received the bribe amount in person and without her knowledge, PW2 placed it between the files, when she took Ex.P2 from Almarah. This statement of the appellant has not been produced in this case. PW12 categorically stated that he recorded the statement and handed over to PW13, the investigating officer. PW13 stated no statements was received by him. The appellant during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., gave an explanation in this regard. Thus, adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, has to be drawn.
(iv)The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant did http://www.judis.nic.in Page 8 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 not receive the bribe amount in person and it was placed between the files as could be seen from the evidence of PW2 and PW3. PW3, PW11 and PW12 have categorically stated that the appellant had not handled bribe amount [MO1]. Hence, it is proved that the appellant had not handled MO1. On the contrary, it is seen that PW5, the Scientific Officer gave report [Ex.P13], that MO2 to MO4 answered positive for phenolphthalein test. MO2 is the left hand wash and MO3 is the right hand wash of the appellant. MO4 and MO5 are the wash which was taken from the files. Hence, MO2 and MO3 answering positive would falsify the case of the prosecution and proved the appellant is falsely implicated in this case. PW12/TLO to somehow make the trap success, made MO2 and MO3 turned positive. No explanation had been given by the prosecution how MO2 and MO3 turned positive. The evidence of PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12 is that when the hand wash of the appellant MO2 and MO3 were taken, the sodium carbonate solution was colourless, on the other hand PW5 report Ex.P13 stated that MO2 and MO3 appears pale pink turbid liquid and the presence of sodium carbonate. The trial Court failed to look into these facts, the forensic report cuts the root of the prosecution case. On this ground alone the appellant ought to be acquitted.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 9 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015
(v)It is admitted by PW2 and PW3 that there was no demand. In the absence of demand and acceptance, mere recovery of tainted amount would not be a reason to convict the appellant and the appellant ought to be acquitted from the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court in catena of judgments have given authoritative pronouncements that the proof of demand is sine quo non in a case of trap. Further, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant received the bribe amount. The trial Court on a wrong premise had given a finding that in this case, the demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved by the prosecution.
(vi)PW12 enlisted PW10 and one Fathima, Women Police Constables attached to Cantonment Police Station to be witness for the trap and informed them to be present during entrustment proceedings and recovery. PW10 is frisked and examined the appellant after the arrest, detained her in Cantonment Police Station. There is nothing to show that PW10 and the said Fathima, Women Police Constable were present. During entrustment and recovery proceedings, it is admitted by PW10 as well as PW12 that there is no endorsement in Entrustment Mahazar http://www.judis.nic.in Page 10 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 [Ex.P6] and Recovery Mahazar [Ex.P10] by PW10 and Fathima, the Women Police Constables.
(vii)In this case, PW4, PW7, PW8 and PW11 are from the survey department, who were working and sharing the same office room with the appellant. All these witnesses have stated they have seen nothing with regard to any demand and receipt of bribe amount by the appellant. PW6, the Headquarters Tahsildar admitted that on 10.12.2001 he was not in station and he attended Collector Office in Tiruchirapalli. Hence, he could not sign FMB sketch. It is seen that the work on the part of appellant in issuing FMB sketch is completed and for the delay in issuance of FMB sketch, the appellant is not the reason. Further PW13, the investigating officer admitted that all the statements and documents reached the Court along with charge sheet belatedly and there is no reason given for the same. The statement of PW2 ought to have sent immediately, but it reached the Court with delay. He further submitted that the appellant is a Muslim and during the trap, it was Ramzan month, a sacred period and no Muslim people would venture to indulge in such act as projected by the prosecution. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to acquit the appellant from the charge levelled against http://www.judis.nic.in Page 11 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 her.
(viii)In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following citations. ● State of Maharashtra Versus Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede reported in (2009) 4 MLJ (Crl) 335 (SC). ● N.Thangarajulu and another Versus State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tanjore District reported in (2001) M.L.J. (Crl).1050.
● S.P.Paulraj Versus State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corrpution, Ramanathapuram reported in (2009) 2 MLJ (Crl) 105.
● A.V.Vijayarangan and Others Versus State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem reported in (2010) 1 MLJ (Crl) 541.
● D.Dass, Inspector of Police, (Ex-Inspector of Police, Cuddalore Police Station), Cuddalore-2 Versus State, rep. by Superintendend of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, Cuddalore reported in (2010) 2 MLJ (Crl) 225.
● M.Rajendran Versus State, rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Cuddalore reported in 2011 (1) MWN (Cr.) 602.
● Mukhtlar Singh (since deceased) through his legal representative Versus State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136. ● K.P.Kolanthai Versus State by Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Wing, Dharmapuri reported in (2019) 3 MLJ (Crl) 713. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 12 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015
(ix)The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant for the preposition, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine quo non for constitution of an offence under the provision of the Act, no recovery from the appellant hence the phenolphthalein test has no role to play, mere recording of money alone is not sufficient to convict a person. In the absence of demand, the question raising the presumption would not arise, moreover the onus on an accused is not as heavy as that of prosecution. It may be compared with a defendant in a civil proceedings.
7.(i)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that in this case PW2 is the decoy, PW3 is the official accompanying witness, PW5 is the Scientific Officer, PW12 is the Trap Laying Officer and PW13 is the Investigation Officer. PW2 in his evidence stated that the appellant had made a demand on 06.12.2001 while submitting Exs.P2 & P3 seeking for FMB sketch which needed to be file before the civil Court. The prosecution has proved the fact of receipt of complaint [Ex.P4], registration of FIR [Ex.P16], enlisting of official witnesses namely PW3 and one Muthuraj. http://www.judis.nic.in Page 13 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015
(ii)He further submitted that in the presence of PW2, PW3 and Muthuraj, PW12 conducted entrustment proceedings and the same was recorded in Entrustment Mahazar [Ex.P6]. The trap team along with PW2 and PW3 went to the office of the appellant at 04.55 p.m., PW2 and PW3 entered the office of the appellant. PW12 and trap team members were keeping watch over them. PW2 and PW3 after coming out of the office within ten minutes, gave the pre-arranged signal. On seeing, PW12 along with trap team, entered the office of appellant, enquired PW2 and PW3 who identified the appellant, confirmed the demand and receipt of bribe amount. Thereafter, PW2 was asked to leave the place. PW11, superior officer to the appellant was called to be witness for recovery. PW3, PW11 and PW12 are the witnesses for the Recovery Mahazar [Ex.P10]. The appellant on seeing the trap team got perplexed and she was sweating and shivering. With the help of PW10 and one Fathima, the appellant was consoled. Thereafter, on enquiry the appellant admitted the receipt of bribe amount. The appellant gave explanation that it was PW2, who offered the bribe amount, she had not received the same physically and the bribe amount was asked to be placed in the file. Thereafter, the phenolphthalein test was conducted on the left and right hand of the appellant and the files where the tainted http://www.judis.nic.in Page 14 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 money was kept. The hand wash of the appellant are MO2 and MO3. The wash taken from the file where the money was kept is MO4 and MO5.
(iii)Thereafter, the trap money MO1 was recovered, Recovery Mahazar [Ex.P10], Observation Mahazar [Ex.P11] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P17] were prepared and witnesses present in the scene of occurrence were examined. The appellant was arrested and her house was searched and no incriminating materials was found. Thereafter, PW12 handed over the investigation to PW13. PW13 conducted further investigation, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and obtained forensic report [Ex.P13]. On conclusion of investigation, prepared draft charge sheet, obtained sanction order [Ex.P1] and filed charge sheet before the trial Court.
(iv)PW2 and PW3 have stated about the demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount [MO1]. PW3, PW11 and PW12 are the witnesses to the recovery and seizure of MO1, for phenolphthalein test conducted in the hands of the appellant and washes from the file [MO3 to MO5]. PW5, the Scientific Officer gave his report [Ex.P13], confirmed http://www.judis.nic.in Page 15 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 the presence of phenolphthalein powder in MO2 to MO5. PW10 is the Women Police Constable whose service was enlisted, since the accused happens to be a women. PW10 stated about her presence during the entrustment proceedings, recovery, arrest and frisking of appellant before detaining her in Cantonment Police Station. Thus the prosecution by producing cogent evidence and materials had proved its case. The trail Court on proper analysis had convicted the appellant, which need not be interfered with.
8.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
(i)PW2 was in need of FMB sketch, he submitted an application [Ex.P2] to PW6. PW6, the Headquarters Tahsildar initialled, directed PW2 to submit to the appellant. On 06.01.2001, the appellant handed over filled challan to remit necessary fee. PW2 had remitted the fee and handed over Exs.P2 & P3. PW2 was in a haste to get FMB sketch immediately. The appellant submitted that FMB sketch has to be signed by Tahsildar and thereafter, only it could be issued. The demand in this case seems to be highly artificial for the reason that the admission http://www.judis.nic.in Page 16 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 of PW2 during the trap and recording in the entrustment proceedings is that “Ma;thsh; vjphp vd;dplk; gzk;nfl;lhy; bfhLf;Fk;goa[k; my;yJ vd; tpUg;gg;goa[k; bra;ayhk; vd;Wk; vd;dplk; tUk; muRrhl;rp Rfh;ridg;gw;wp vjphp nfl;lhy; vd;
cwtpdh; my;yJ ez;gh; vd;W VjhtJ brhy;ypf;bfhs;Sk;goa[k; brhd;dhh;/” Likewise PW3 has stated as “thjp jd; ,c&;lk; nghy; bra;ayhk; vd;Wk; ”. Thus, when such instruction is given, the demand on 06.12.2001 itself becomes highly doubtful. Further it is admitted that the amount was not received by the appellant in person as could be seen from the evidence of PW2 and PW3. PW2 admitted that in his evidence that “ehd; vjphpaplk; brd;W vjphpia re;jpj;jnghJ vjphp y”;rg;gzk; gw;wp vJt[k; nfl;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;.” Further PW2 admitted that “nkYk; ehd; jhd; jd;dpr;irahf gzj;ija[k; ehisf;F th';fpf;bfhs;fPh;fsh vd;W nfl;nld; vd;why; rhpjhd;”. PW3 stated that “vjphp mUz;K:h;j;jpaplk; ve;j gzKk; nfl;ftpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.” The trap amount MO1 was placed between the files and the same was recovered by PW12 is admitted by PW3, PW10, PW11 and PW12.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 17 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015
(ii)The appellant immediately during the trap gave explanation that she had not made any demand without her knowledge when she took Ex.P2 file from Almarah, PW2 placed the money between the files. The appellant taking Ex.P2 from Almarah and recovery of Ex.P2 from Almarah is admitted by PW2 and PW3 and confirmed by PW12/TLO. It is seen that the work with regard to the appellant had been completed and FMB sketch could not be issued on 10.01.2001, since PW6 was not in station and he was on other duty. PW6, Tahsildar has to sign the file and issue the same. The other issues in this case is that the hand washes of the appellant namely MO2 and MO3, all the witnesses to the trap namely PW3, PW10, PW11, PW12 and in Recovery Mahazar [Ex.P10] it is stated that the hand washes MO2 and MO3 did not react, change in colour and it was plain. That being the case, the evidence of PW5 and his report Ex.P13 causes great concern and doubt in the case of the prosecution how MO2 and MO3 turned positive. From the report [Ex.P13] it is found that “Very pale pink turbid liquid, Turbid liquid with pale pink tint” are mentioned in the report for MO2 and MO3 and the presence of phenolphthalein powder is found and all the test answering positive. It is surprise to see that MO2 to MO5 had reacted and responded in identical manner. When the specific case of the http://www.judis.nic.in Page 18 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 prosecution is that MO2 and MO3/hand wash of the appellant are colourless, the appellant had not handled the phenolphthalein powder smeared notes. It is admitted that the appellant at no point of time came in contact with the phenolphthalein powder. In such case MO2 and MO3 answering positive for phenolphthalein test in all manner, cast some doubt on Ex.P13, report.
(iii)The evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5, PW10, PW11 and PW12 are contrary to each other and also contrary to the evidence of PW5 and his report Ex.P13. Further, it is admitted by PW3, PW10, PW11, PW12 that the explanation of the appellant was recorded and handed over to PW13. On the other hand PW13 denies the same. PW1 the sanction witness stated that he had gone through the statement of the appellant produced by PW13. PW13 stated no such statement of the appellant was handed over to him by PW12/TLO. Added to it, PW8 and PW11 are certain that the appellant was taken by the respondent to the Vigilance office by 06.00 p.m. It is pertinent to be seen that in Ex.P4, the signature of PW2 is below the endorsement of PW12, the Inspector of Police, who registered the case “Registered a case in Trichy V&AC Cr.No.13/2001 U/s.7 of PC Act, 1988 on 10.12.2001.” which cannot be http://www.judis.nic.in Page 19 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 so, the genuineness of the complaint becomes doubtful. Further in Ex.P1, it is seen as follows:-
“Whereas I Pannerselvam, Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records (Name and Designation) being the authority competent to remove the said Tmt.Fathimabi from office, after fully and carefully examining the materials placed before me such as FIR in Crime No.13/2001 of Trichy V & AC Unit, Mahazars, statements of witnesses and accused and other connected records in regard to the said allegation and in the circumstances of the case.” This would go to show the cut and past method followed. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “P.Sathyanarayana Murthy Versus State of A.P reported in (2016) 1 SCC (Crl) 11” has held as follows:-
“23.The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to http://www.judis.nic.in Page 20 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.”
(iv)In this case, the trap proceedings undertaken is questionable, the trap proceedings bristled with suspiciousness, create doubts and improbableness. The demand is not proved and the trap money was not recovered from the appellant.
(v)Thus from the above, the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant. The appellant by cross examination of the prosecution witnesses had probablized his defence.
The trial Court failed to look into these facts.
9.Hence, the case as projected by the prosecution is not safe to sustain conviction without corroboration. In such view of the matter this Court is of the considered view, the conviction and sentence imposed by http://www.judis.nic.in Page 21 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 the trial Court against the appellant cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in Special C.C.No.87 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Tiruchirapalli, are set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against her and the fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to her. The Bail Bond, if any, executed stands cancelled.
28.08.2020 Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No vv2 To
1.The Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 22 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in Page 23 of 24 Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN Crl.A(MD)No.189 of 2015 28.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in Page 24 of 24