Madras High Court
L.Venkadeshan vs State By The Additional Deputy on 13 March, 2013
Author: Aruna Jagadeesan
Bench: Aruna Jagadeesan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13/03/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRL.A(MD)333 of 2009 L.Venkadeshan ... Appellant Vs State by the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption Virudhunagar ... Respondent Prayer This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.2009 made in Special CC.No.1/2005 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Judge for Corruption Cases) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. !For Appellant ... Mr.M.Ravi Shankar ^For Respondent ... Mrs.S.Prabha, GA :JUDGEMENT
The Appellant, who is the sole accused in Special CC.No.1/2005, has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 22.10.2009 made in Special CC.No.1/2005 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Judge for Corruption Cases) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, thereby convicting and sentencing the Appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and ordering the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:-
a. One Sethuraj, PW.2/defacto complainant has filed an application Ex.P7 for issuance of patta for his ancestral house in the year 2002 at Rajapalayam Taluk Office. At that time, the Appellant/accused was working in the said Taluk Office as an Assistant. On 11.9.2003, PW.2 along with his relative PW.3 Azhagarsamy approached the Appellant for issuance of patta and the Appellant, saying that the file was with him, demanded a sum of Rs.300/- as illegal gratification to forward the file to the Tahsildar for issuance of patta. Since PW.2 was unwilling to give any bribe amount to the Appellant, he made a complaint Ex.P9 on 15.9.2003 at 1.00 p.m. to PW.9, the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Virudhunagar. b. On receipt of Ex.P9, after satisfying himself, PW.9 prepared Ex.P10 First Information Report and arranged for a trap proceedings. Thereafter, PW.9 introduced two independent witnesses, PW.4 and one Velpandian, who was working in the Fisheries Department to PW.2 and they were given a copy of Ex.P9. PW.9 asked PW.2 to produce the bribe amount and PW.2 gave Rs.300/-, three currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination to him. Thereafter, PW.9 demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and also explained the significance of the test to PW.2 and the other two independent witnesses. PW.2 kept the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder in his shirt pocket. PW.9 asked P.W.2 to hand over the amount to the accused, if he made a demand of the same and also told them that if the accused accepted the money, he should come out of the Office and give a pre-arranged signal, by folding his dhoti. Thereafter, PW.9 prepared Ex.P11 mahazar and obtained the signatures of PW.2 and the other witnesses. At about 2.45 p.m. along with the trap party, PW.9 went to Rajapalayam Taluk Office. At about 4.00 p.m., when PW.2 went inside the Office, the Appellant asked PW.2 whether he has brought the bribe money and PW.2 gave the tainted notes to the accused. The Appellant received it in his right hand and after counting it by left hand, put it inside the table drawer, which was witnessed by PW.4. Then, the Appellant asked PW.2 to come on the next day. PW.2 came out of the Office and gave the prearranged signal. PW.9, after sending PW.2 to his native place, along with PW.4 went inside the Office. On identifying the Appellant by PW.4, PW.9 introduced himself to the Appellant. On being questioned by PW.9 as to whether he has received the bribe money, though the Appellant initially refused, immediately thereafter, he agreed that he received the bribe amount. Thereafter, PW.9 prepared sodium carbonate solution in two glasses and asked the accused to dip the fingers of both hands separately. The solutions, in which both the right and left hand fingers were dipped, turned pink. PW.9 seized the tainted notes MO.1 (Series) and then sealed the bottles after pouring the solution in those bottles, M.O.2 and M.O.3 under mahazar Ex.P17. On comparing the numbers of the seized tainted notes with that of the numbers mentioned in the mahazar, it tallied. Thereafter, after verifying the documents relating to PW.2, PW.9 seized the same under a search mahazar Ex.P14 and also seized Ex.P15 register and Ex.P16 patta related documents and obtained the signatures of the witnesses in the said documents. A copy of Ex.P17 was issued to the Appellant and information Ex.P26 was given to the concerned court. c. Thereafter, PW.9 went to the house of the accused and made a search and prepared a search mahazar Ex.P18 and obtained the signatures of the Appellant and PW.4 and prepared Ex.P27 rough sketch of the Rajapalayam Taluk Office. Therafter, he arrested the Appellant and sent him for judicial custody and examined PW.2 and recorded his statement. Thereafter, after completing investigation, PW.9 handed over the file to PW.11 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, who in turn, sent the solutions for chemical test, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing investigation and after receiving chemical analysis report and after obtaining sanction from P.W.1 the District Revenue Officer, PW.11 laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 06.06.2005.
3. The case was taken on file in Special CC.No.1/200 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Judge for Corruption Cases) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur and necessary charges were framed. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.11) and also relied on Exs.P1 to P30 and marked three material objects (Mos.1 to 3).
4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the Prosecution's witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, neither any document was marked nor any witness was examined.
5. The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
6. Mr.M.Ravi Shankar, the learned counsel for the Appellant assailed the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the court below on the following grounds:-
(a) There is unjustified and unexplained delay in preferring the complaint by the complainant, which makes the case of the Prosecution doubtful and it is fatal to the Prosecution case. The learned counsel would submit that this is an extremely important factor, as it is the Prosecution case that the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.300/- to forward the file to the Tahsildar for issuance of patta even on 11.9.2003 and PW.2/defacto complainant was not willing to give bribe to the Appellant. If the bribe was demanded as alleged by the Prosecution on 11.9.2003, why PW.2 did not lodge the report till 14.9.2003.
The learned counsel would contend that the delay in lodging the First Information Report coupled with discrepancies in the statements of the Prosecution witnesses give rise to suspicion about the truthfulness of the entire Prosecution case. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court report in AIR-2006-SC-894 (Om Prakash Vs. State of Haryana).
(b) The Trap Officer acted under the preconceived idea of guilt of the Appellant and he has not made any preliminary enquiry to find out as to whether the allegation levelled against the Appellant was true, especially when the defacto complainant had already given an application for patta even in the year 2002 and the Tahsildar had inspected the property and thereafter, the defacto complainant did not pursue his demand for patta. All of a sudden, he has come forward with an allegation that the Appellant demanded bribe for forwarding the file to the Tahsildar, which on the face of it, appears to be unbelievable. The learned counsel drew the attention of this court to Ex.P9 the complaint given by the defacto complainant, which discloses the above facts.
(c) The sanction order relied upon by the Prosecution is invalid and unsustainable for the reason that the aforesaid sanction order has been passed without any application of mind and all the materials collected during investigation were not placed before the sanctioning authority. The learned counsel contended that the authority has accorded sanction without referring to the incriminating material collected during investigation and the aforesaid inference finds strength from the fact that the report submitted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption alone has been referred to in the reference column and there is no indication of other documents, like FIR, report of the phenolphthalein test, pre-trap and post-trap mahazars have been perused by the sanctioning authority. In that regard, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2007-CCR-SC-1 (State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan) and the decision of this court reported in 1996-MLJ- Crl-Mad-210 (Krishnamurthy Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, City II, Madras).
(d) There are serious contradictions and infirmities in the evidence of PW.2/defacto complainant and the trap witness PW.4 on the aspect of demand and receipt of the alleged bribe amount, which would disprove the Prosecution case.
(e) Despite presence of independent witnesses, the place of occurrence being a Taluk Office, the Prosecution has not chosen to examine any one of the said witnesses, at least to speak about the trap and receipt of bribe amount by the Appellant.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has refuted all the above contentions and submitted that the sanctioning authority PW.1 was not confronted with the said aspect of the matter and as such, the Appellant cannot take advantage of this infirmity, because he did not seek any explanation for this infirmity from the witness. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also contended that there is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4 and their testimonies clearly proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the Appellant. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that as a matter of fact, it was clear that the Appellant accepted money from the complainant and no suspicion aroused in respect of either the demand of the money or acceptance thereof. He also submitted that the phenolphthalein test proved positive and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be raised on the basis of evidence of the witnesses, namely, PW.2 and PW.4.
8. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record.
9. The defacto complainant had applied for issuance of patta in the year 2002 at Rajapalayam Taluk Office. At that time, the Appellant was working as an Assistant in the said Taluk Office. Originally, he worked as an Assistant from 27.6.2001 to 1.7.2002 and thereafter from 25.12.2002 to 15.9.2003. In between 1.7.2002 to 25.12.2002 one Adhi Narayanan worked as an Assistant. On an application given by PW.2 seeking for issuance of patta on 20.3.2002, it was forwarded to the Tahsildar and notice has been sent to PW.2 on 11.4.2002 requiring him to appear for enquiry. Then, a report was filed by the concerned Village Administrative Officer stating that the said land for which patta was requested is a common pathway. On such report, the then Tahsildar PW.7, had made inspection and on his enquiry, he had come to know that it is a common lane. Thereafter, he had advised the Assistant, Adhi Narayanan to prepare a report accordingly. In the meanwhile, the Appellant was re-transferred to Rajapalayam Taluk Office as the Assistant. After taking charge, the Appellant has also put his initial on 27.2.2003 acknowledging the endorsement made by Adhi Narayanan. The above facts are revealed from the testimony of PW.7, the Tahsildar.
10. In the said backdrop of the above facts, the case of the Prosecution has to be looked into. As per the case of the Prosecution, the Appellant demanded Rs.300/- from PW.2 on 11.3.2009 to submit the file to the Tahsildar for issuance of patta to the aforementioned land. PW.2, who was unwilling to pay any bribe amount to the Appellant lodged a complaint to PW.9 Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar Vigilance and Anti Corruption wing. A case was registered and trap was arranged.
11. According to PW.2, the demand of bribe was made on 11.9.2003 by the Appellant. PW.1 was well aware that his request for issuance of patta even in the year 2002 was enquired into by the Tahsildar and it was found that it is a common pathway and no patta could be granted to PW.2. In such circumstances, if there was a demand of bribe, then PW.2 would have reported the same to the higher officer when he was fully aware that no patta could be issued to him. If the request for patta had already been negatived, then the question of any demand of bribe would not arise. Admittedly, there is a delay of 4 days in lodging the complaint. The Prosecution did not explain as to why the complaint had been made after 4 days, more so, when PW.2 was unwilling to pay any bribe amount and decided not to give any bribe even on 11.9.2003. It is not his case that despite the report by the Tahsildar declining to issue patta to PW.2, the Appellant assured him to arrange for issuance of patta to him.
12. It is here the necessity for making preliminary enquiry before lodging a First Information Report arises. An important decision that a preliminary enquiry was necessary before lodging a First Information Report was rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in P.Sirajuddin etc. Vs. The State of Madras, etc. (AIR-1971-SC-520) . The important observations are as follows:-
"Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general."
13. In the instant case, had the Trap Officer made any attempt to make any preliminary enquiry, he would have come to know about the proceedings of the Tahsildar, who held enquiry even in the year 2002 and put up a negative note in the file. If enquiry had been held, then there would have been an occasion to know about the truthfulness of the allegations. PW.9's evidence does not indicate that he had conducted any preliminary enquiry before registering the First Information Report or taking action against the Appellant. The whole course of investigation as disclosed from his evidence is suggestive of some pre-determination of the guilt of the Appellant.
14. The star witnesses in this case are PW.2 and PW.4, who speak about the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The material contradictions and infirmities in the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses give rise to serious doubts as to the manner in which bribe was offered and received. The Prosecution case is that the bribe amount was received by the Appellant in his hands and then the same was put in the table drawer. In contra to the Prosecution case, PW.2 deposed in his cross examination that he himself put the bribe money directly in the drawer. In fact, he contradicted himself from what was stated by him in his chief examination regarding the receipt of bribe money, inasmuch as he said in Chief that the Appellant received in his right hand and counted by using his left hand and then put it in the table drawer, whereas in his cross examination, he deposed that PW.2 himself directly put the money into his drawer. In his cross examination, he has gone one step further and stated that on the directions of the Appellant, he put the money inside the table drawer, thus reiterating his version that it is he who put the money inside the drawer.
15. The version of the Prosecution is that on the date of the trap, the Appellant on seeing PW.2 again asked him whether he had brought the money and PW.4 who accompanied him was very much present and heard the conversation between PW.2 and the Appellant. In fact, PW.2 has affirmed his presence at that time by stating that the Appellant asked about his identity to which PW.2 replied that he is his friend. But, PW.4, in his cross examination, has deposed that PW.2 and the Appellant talked secretly, thereby indicating that PW.4 was not aware as to what transpired between PW.2 and the Appellant.
16. Another material discrepancy is the evidence of PW.2, which indicated that after the trap, he left the place and thereafter, did not come. But, PW.4 has given a contradictory version that immediately after the completion of the trap, the raiding party including PW.2 went to the house of the Appellant and PW.2 was present with PW.4 during the search of the house of the Appellant.
17. Yet another contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses is that as per the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4, they went along with PW.9 in a car to Rajapalayam i.e. to the Office of the Appellant, whereas PW.4 Trap Officer gave a different version that he sent PW.2 and PW.4 separately in a car and thereafter, he went with his team to Rajapalayam in another vehicle.
18. From the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4, it can be seen that the above witnesses have given different versions regarding recovery of the amount from the accused. The Prosecution has not examined any independent witness, though the place of occurrence is a taluk office where the visitation of public is common. Moreover, the version of the Prosecution as to offer and receipt of the bribe money as narrated by the Prosecution witnesses does not inspire any confidence. Serious doubts arise as to the manner in which bribe was offered and received as also regarding the recovery of bribe money.
19. Moreover, PW.4 who accompanied PW.2 has candidly stated in his cross examination that he did not hear the conversation between PW.2 and the Appellant, as they were talking to each other secretly in a low voice. Therefore, what transpired between PW.2 and PW.4 is not known. The very fact of recovery of the decoy money from the table drawer of the Appellant throws a clear doubt regarding the acceptance of bribe money by the Appellant. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency or inherent inconsistency in reference to the account as stated by one witness on being cross checked with the account as stated by the other witness.
20. Before any Court could act on the testimony of the complainant, corroboration in material particulars is necessary. In the instant case, the Prosecution relied on the evidence of PW.4 the accompanying witness for corroboration. Apart from inherent inconsistency in their evidence, PW.4 cannot be treated as an independent evidence, as there is every chance for him to support the case of the Prosecution. His evidence clearly indicated that no written permission has been granted to him for accompanying the complainant as a decoy witness. He has candidly admitted in his cross examination that there would not be any entry in the movement register, as he had not signed the movement register. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is an independent witness not in any way interested in the trap. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1985-1- SCC-28 (Khilli ram Vs. State of Rajasthan), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the testimony of trap witnesses should be tested in the same way as interested evidence is tested requiring independent corroboration in proper cases before conviction of the accused.
21. In the light of conflicting versions and suspicious features on the material aspects, the plea of the Appellant that the notes were put in the table drawer without his knowledge, does not appear to be improbable. In any event, PW.2's version does not appear to be wholly reliable. It is, in this context only, the courts have cautioned that as a rule of prudence, some corroboration is necessary. In all these type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important. Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification. Here, demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence. Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been put in the drawer as an illegal gratification. Unfortunately, on this aspect in the present case, there are contradictory versions and when the evidence of PW.2 and PW.4, suffers from infirmities, some other corroboration was needed, but not found. When independent witnesses were available in the taluk office, the non examination of those witnesses would only render the Prosecution case doubtful.
22. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1980-supp-SCC-684 (Gulam Mohamood A. Malik Vs. State of Gujarat) wherein it is observed that in appreciating the evidence, the background of the story and the complainant must be considered and the manner in which trap conducted and recovery made also forms crucial. The Honourable Supreme Court has further held that failure to examine independent witness naturally present on the occasion would be significant and conviction on facts solely on testimony of panch witness not proper.
23. In yet another decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1974-3-SCC-595 (Darshan Lal Vs. Delhi Administration) the accused was given benefit of doubt, in the absence of independent and reliable corroborative evidence when other evidence placed on record is not conclusive and found contradictory.
24. It is the vehement contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the Appellant has accepted money from the complainant and that the phenolphthalein test in respect of the hands of the Appellant also proved positive. He, therefore, claims that a presumption under Section 20 of the Act was liable to be raised against the Appellant.
25. The learned counsel for the Appellant counters this argument by submitting that there has to be a volition on the part of the Appellant in accepting the money before such presumption could be raised and there is clear evidence to the effect that the money was seized only from the table drawer and therefore, no presumption could be raised. The learned counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2009-3-SCC-779 (C.M.Girish Babu Vs. CBI) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court has held that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. It is held that the mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the Prosecution against the accused, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of the bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money.
26. In the present case, there is specific admission by PW.4 that he was not able to hear any conversation and therefore, it is doubtful as to whether the Appellant again reiterated the demand of bribe. PW.2 says that he directly put the notes in the drawer. Though in chief the complainant claimed that the money was paid, but there are two versions which suggest that the money was not paid as projected by the Prosecution and there was no conversation regarding the give and take of money. The aforesaid contrary evidence elicited during the cross examination coupled with the other infirmities and inconsistencies in the Prosecution case would completely white wash the evidence of the complainant and would run definitely counter to the evidence of PW.4. Under such circumstances, the whole story of demand and acceptance of the money becomes suspicious. If that becomes suspicious, then it is difficult to raise a presumption.
27. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that the Appellant can rebut the charge either through cross examination of Prosecution witnesses or by adducing reliable evidence. Further, the burden of proof on accused under Section 20 is not the same as the burden placed on Prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the acceptance of the amount by the accused has not been proved by the Prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In my view, there is serious lacuna in the case of the Prosecution and demand and acceptance by the accused has not been proved by the Prosecution.
28. Finally, the learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that there is completely non application of mind by the sanctioning authority and there are no materials to indicate that the sanction order was passed after considering the facts and therefore, the sanction order is bad in law. The learned counsel for the Appellant in support of his contention relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2007-11-SCC-273 (State of Karnataka Vs. Ameer Jan) wherein an order of sanction was issued by the Commissioner of Stamps solely on the basis of a purported report issued by Inspector General of Police. During trial, the sanctioning authority did not produce the report of the Inspector General of Police. The Trial Judge upon considering the materials brought on record by the Prosecution opined that the accused was guilty of commission of the said offence. By reason of the impugned judgement, the High Court of Karnataka reversed the said decision by opining that the order of sanction being illegal, the judgement of conviction could not be sustained. In the appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court, it held as below:-
"It is true that an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner. But, it is also well settled that the purpose for which an order of sanction is required to be passed should always be borne in mind. Ordinarily, the sanctioning authority is the best person to judge as to whether the public servant concerned should receive the protection under the Prevention of Corruption Act by refusing to accord sanction for his prosecution or not. For the aforementioned purpose, application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority is imperative. The order granting sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. In the instant case, the sanctioning authority had purported to pass the order of sanction solely on the basis of the report made by the Inspector General of Police. Even the said report has not been brought on record. Thus, whether in the said report, either in the body thereof or by annexing therewith the relevant documents, Inspector of Police had placed on record the materials collected on investigation of the matter which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to the commission of the offence by the public servant concerned is not evident. The High Court called for the original records. It had gone thereunto. It was found that except the said report, no other record was made available before the sanctioning authority. The order of sanction also stated so. The sanctioning authority did not have the occasion to consider the records except the purported report. Therefore, the impugned judgement of the High Court do not lay down the correct legal position."
29. In the instant case, on a perusal of the sanction order, it would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted only to the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption dated 1.102004. There is no evidence to show as to whether the sanctioning authority has perused the other materials before according sanction. The order of sanction must ex- facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the First Information Report and other materials placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the court to show that all relevant facts were considered. As held by the Honourable Supreme Court, the sanction must be demonstrative of the fact that there had been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. All materials collected during investigation which would prima facie establish existence of evidence in regard to commission of offence by public servant concerned, should be available before the order of sanction is passed. The law requires that before sanctioning, materials must be placed so that it can apply its mind and take a decision.
30. In the instant case, the sanction is given solely on the basis of report made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption. The materials collected during investigation were not available before the sanctioning authority. It appears from the sanction order that the sanctioning authority had occasion only to consider the report of the Vigilance Department and even if such a report is a detailed one, such report cannot be held to be the complete records required to be considered for sanction on application of mind to the relevant materials on record. That apart, even the consolidated report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Vigilance and Anti Corruption was not placed before the court. Under the above said circumstances and for all the reasoning aforesaid, this court totally endorses its view with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant.
31. In view of the aforementioned discussions, it will have to be held that the Prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the case contended by it and the benefit of such doubt, therefore, will have to be given to the accused. In that view of the matter, this criminal appeal will have to be allowed.
32. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. The bail bond, if any executed by him, shall stand terminated and the fine amount, if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him.
Srcm To:
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Judge for Corruption Cases) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur.
2.The Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Virudhunagar
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai