Madras High Court
M.Nehru Jawahar vs State By The
Author: G.Chandrasekharan
Bench: G.Chandrasekharan
Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order
25.03.2022 22.04.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
M.Nehru Jawahar .. Appellant
Vs.
State by the
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-corruption,
Salem (Cr.No.7/Ac/2002) .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in Spl.C.C.No.12/2014 (Old
No.44/02 of CJM cum Spl.Judge Salem), on the file of Spl.Court under
Prevention of Corruption Act, and to set aside the judgment and conviction
imposed on the appellant to undergo one year RI and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and further
sentencing to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default
undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 7
and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of prevention of corruption Act.
For Appellant : Mr. V.Ramamurthy
For Respondent : Mr. E.Raj Thilak
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
JUDGMENT
The respondent police filed a final report against the appellant alleging that on 28.03.2002, at about 14.05 hrs to 14.15 hrs in his office at Navakurichi Village, Aathur Taluk, Salem District, appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.800/- from Maruthai S/o Periyannan in connection with getting the change over switch electric connection and accepted illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration for performing his duty as a public servant and thus, committed the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.On the basis of the final report, charges under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting illegal gratification were framed against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and demanded trial.
3.The prosecution examined PW1 to 14 witnesses, produced Ex.P1 to P18 documents. DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the appellant.
2/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
4.The case of the prosecution as seen from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, in brief, is as follows:
PW2 is the defacto complainant, PW3 is the trap witness and PW12 is the trap laying officer. PW2's father owns 2 acres 67 cents in SF.No.290/3 in Navakurichi Village. There is a Well in this land with 5HP motor. The electric service connection number is 823. There will be no water in the Well in non rainy season. Therefore, PW2 dug a bore well and it yielded some water. He wanted to fix a change over switch for drawing water from bore Well and storing it in the Well. When he enquired with the wireman Kasi, he instructed to get Chita, Adangal and FMB from the Village Administrative Officer and give an application to the Electricity Department. On 18.03.2002, he visited the VAO's office and asked the appellant Chita, Adangal and FMB. The appellant had demanded Rs.2,000/- for giving these records. PW2 told him that he is not able to pay that amount and came back. He met appellant again on 22.03.2022 at about 12 noon in this regard and appellant demanded Rs.1,200/- and also stated that he cannot further reduce the amount. Again on 27.03.2002, he visited the appellant and met him at 1.00 p.m. Appellant told him that he cannot reduce 3/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 below 1,500/- and then PW2, informed to the Assistant Mapukhan. Mapukhan spoke to the appellant, then the appellant reduced the bribe amount to Rs.800/- PW2 told him that he had no money, thence, he would give the bribe money next day. Appellant informed him that whether he is in office or not tomorrow, he can give the money to his Assistant and get the records. PW2 did not want to give the bribe amount and therefore, he gave a complaint to PW12, the Inspector of Vigilance department on 28.03.2002.
5.On receiving the complaint, PW12 registered Ex.P16 FIR for the offences under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, in Cr.No.7/Ac/2002 and planned a trap. He made an arrangement to get the official witnesses R.Kannan, Junior Assistant from Water and Sewage Department, Aravind, Junior Assistant from District Primary Education Office and they appeared before him. They were given copy of the complaint and they verified the facts. PW2 brought Rs.800/- meant for giving as bribe to the appellant. PW12 demonstrated the Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein test to PW2 and witnesses and he prepared entrustment mahazar for receiving Rs.800/- from PW2. Then instructed the witnesses PW3 Aravind to accompany PW2 and watch the transaction. PW2 was 4/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 instructed to give the bribe amount if demanded by the appellant and then signal him by combing his hair backward.
6.They left to the appellant's office around 2.00p.m. PW2 and PW3 Aravind were dropped at a distance and they walked to the appellant's office. PW7 and his men took positions at a distance. PW2 and PW3 went inside the office which is situated in the upper floor. On entering the appellant's office, appellant asked him whether he brought the money demanded by him. PW2 told him that he brought the money and asked him whether the Chita, Adangal are ready. Appellant replied that the documents are ready and demanded money. Then PW2 handed over the bribe amount to him. Appellant received the bribe money with his right hand and kept in the right side of the drawer. Then appellant handed over Chita, Adangal and Sketch. PW3 Aravind had corroborated the evidence of PW2 with regard to the Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein test, preparation of entrustment Mahazar, demand of money by the appellant and its acceptance by him.
7.After giving the bribe money to the appellant, both PW2 and PW3 came out from the appellant's office and PW2 signalled the Inspector with 5/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 the pre-arranged signal. Then PW12 approached him with the police party and all of them went to the appellant's office at the upper floor. PW2 identified the appellant as the one who demanded and accepted illegal gratification for granting Chita, Adangal to PW12. PW12 introduced himself to the appellant and arranged for preparation of Sodium Carbonate solution. He directed the appellant to dip his right and left hand fingers in the solution. When the appellant dipped his right and left hand fingers in the Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution changed to light pink colour. On enquiry about the bribe amount, appellant produced Rs.800/- from right side of the drawer and claimed that this money was given by PW2 for his expenses. Currency notes numbers were compared with the numbers recorded in the entrustment register and found to be the same. Appellant had also produced Rs.750/- and that was returned to him. PW12 prepared Ex.P6 and P7 recovery mahazars and Ex.P8 rough sketch. Then after sending advance information to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, he conducted search in the appellant's house and no incriminating material was seized from the house.
8.PW13 took up the investigation of this case, examined witnesses, sent the solution to the forensic department for Chemical analysis. PW11 6/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 scientific officer, forensic science department conducted chemical analysis of sealed paper packet containing samples of Phenolphthalein powder, labelled as Sample A, sealed paper packet containing sample of Sodium Carbonate powder, labelled as Sample B, sealed bottle containing 180ml pink turbid solution labelled as right hand fingers tested solution of Mr.Nehru Jawahar, sealed bottle containing 180ml pink turbid solution labelled as left hand fingers tested solution of Mr.Nehru Jawahar. The test revealed that the solutions in item 3 and 4 bottles tested positive with the presence of Sodium Carbonate and Phenolphthalein. PW14 conducted further investigation in this case, obtained sanction from PW1 and filed final report against the appellant, for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9.On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act; 7/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine Rs.5,000/- in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for another six months under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The substantial sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said judgment, this Criminal Appeal is filed.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the charges are not specific with regard to the alleged demand said to have been made by the appellant. The complaint is given in Tamil, but FIR was registered in English. There is a correction in the complaint, Wednesday is corrected as Thursday. There is contradiction as to the time of giving complaint as to whether it was 8.30 a.m. or 9.15 a.m. A sum of Rs.800/- was received in connection with the soil conservation scheme tax due and it was not received as a bribe. PW7's evidence shows that the Village Administrative Officers are entrusted with the task of collecting the soil conservation tax due as and when any defaulter comes for any official purpose. PW2 gave a false complainant against the appellant since he was asked to pay the tax due on soil conservation scheme. When he asked the appellant to help in changing the patta in the name of his Aunt Aarayee, appellant said to have 8/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 refused the demand on the ground that he can act only in accordance with the Court order. Keeping these incidents in mind and as motive, PW2 gave false complaint against the appellant. Despite the material contradictions in the evidence and lapses in the case of the prosecution, the trial Court had wrongly convicted the appellant and therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment of the trial Court and for acquitting the appellant.
11.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution had proved beyond any reasonable doubt with regard to the demand of illegal gratification, its acceptance by the appellant and recovery from the appellant through the oral and documentary evidences of PW2, PW3, PW11 and PW12. The alleged motive attributed against PW2 for giving a false complaint is not true. There is no material produced by the appellant to show that he had collected the tax due in connection with the soil conservation scheme from others. There is no acceptable explanation for not issuing receipt for the receipt of Rs.800/-, if it was collected towards tax due. There is no material produced in support of the motive with regard to the appellant refusing to grant the patta in favour of PW2's Aunt Aarayee 9/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 and on that account PW2 gave false complaint against the appellant. Charges have been framed in accordance with the materials available and there is no defect in framing of charges. The omissions, lapses and the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are not material and they would not in any way affect the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has successfully proved the case and the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced and thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for confirming the judgment of the trial Court and for the dismissal of this Appeal.
12.Points for consideration:
1.Whether there is defect in framing of charges?
2.Whether the sum of Rs.800/- received by the appellant relating to soil conservation scheme tax due from PW2 is not a bribe amount?
3.Whether the judgment of the trial Court has to be set-aside in the light of the grounds raised by the appellant?
10/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
13. The gist of the charges against the appellant is that he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- and finally reduced to Rs.800/- for giving Chitta, Adangal, FMB Sketch, land owner certificate to PW2 for getting the change over switch for the bore Well dug in the Well in his father's land and accepted the amount as illegal gratification. From the oral and documentary evidence produced, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that PW2's father owns the land in question. PW2's father was examined as PW8 and he has stated that he owns 2 acres 67 cents in SF.No.290/3 in Navakurichi Village. He dug a bore Well for the second time and it required a change over switch. The application given by PW2 for change over switch is produced as Ex.P5. This application is dated 27.03.2002. PW2 was informed about the procedure to apply for change over switch by lineman PW4. It is the evidence of PW4 that when PW2 asked about the procedure for installing the compression motor, he told him to get the Chitta, Adangal, Sketch and give an application.
14.As informed by him, PW2 approached the appellant on 18.03.2002, for Chitta Adangal, FMB. It is PW2's evidence that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for providing these documents. 11/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 PW5 was the Assistant Executive Engineer of TNEB Maravaneri Office. He spoke about the procedure for filing application for getting change over switch. As per his evidence, the application shall be submitted along with the patta, chitta, FMB, Kist receipts, VAO's certificate endorsed by Tahsildar with fee of Rs.500/-. Then necessary orders would be passed.
15.As per Ex.P5 application, Chitta, Adangal, VAO's certificate, Kist receipt and FMB Sketch were received on 27.03.2002. PW7, the head quarters, Deputy Tahsildar confirms issuing these certificates. It is evident that these documents were brought by the appellant personally to him on 27.03.2002 and he signed in these documents. PW6 had also given evidence with regard to the procedure to be followed while applying for change over switch with the EB department and the role of the Revenue Department in furnishing the required documents. A combined reading of the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 6 and 7 along with the evidence of PW2 shows that on the basis of Ex.P5 application submitted by PW2 on 27.03.2002, the required certificates, namely, Chitta, Adangal, VAO certificate, FMB Sketch, Kist Receipts had been given to PW2.
12/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
16.The case of the prosecution is that the aforesaid documents had not been given to PW2 in its regular course. They were given only after payment of the illegal gratification as demanded by the appellant. This contention is strongly refused by the appellant and claimed that the sum of Rs.800/- paid by PW2 is not a bribe amount but the tax due payable towards the soil conservation scheme. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to Ex.D1 soil conservation register and Ex.D2 details of the loan No.263/81-82 of Ambaiyiram. It is claimed that PW2's father purchased the land from Ambaiyiram and the said Ambaiyiram was liable to pay Rs.893/- towards the tax due and Rs.686/- towards interest. It is also claimed that PW8, father of PW2 admitted the purchase of land from Ambaiyiram and that he was liable to pay the tax of Rs.893/- towards the soil conservation scheme. This probabilises the case of the appellant that the appellant had received the sum of Rs.800/- only towards the payment of soil conservation scheme tax due and not as a bribe. Whether the explanation offered by the appellant can be accepted or not is a question to be considered now. 13/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
17.A suggestion was made to PW2 that there is a due of Rs.893/- towards principal and Rs.686/- towards interest under the soil conservation scheme. PW2 also accepted that there is a due to be paid to S.No.290/3 under the soil conservation scheme tax due. However, there is no suggestion was made to PW2 that the sum of Rs.800/- paid by PW2 was received only as due towards soil conservation scheme and not as bribe. If the sum of Rs.800/- was received towards the soil conservation scheme due amount, proper receipt should have been issued to PW2. The appellant has not produced any material to show that any receipt was issued for receiving Rs.800/- as due for soil conservation scheme due amount. The tax due with interest comes to Rs.1579/-. But it is claimed by the appellant that only a sum of Rs.800/- was received towards the soil conservation scheme due. It sounds too illogical and hard to believe. Therefore, the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant received a sum of Rs.800/- towards the soil conservation scheme tax due cannot be accepted.
18.Another reason for giving a false complaint against the appellant is that PW2's Aunt Aarayee has land in S.No.321/11 and she has litigation with Chinnakannu with regard to this Chinnakannu filed a suit and got a decree 14/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 in her favour. Therefore, the patta stood in the name of Aarayee was changed to the name of Chinnakannu. When PW2 requested the appellant to again change the patta to his Aunt Aarayee's name, appellant refused his request and therefore, this case had been foisted against PW2. The appellant, however, in support of this motive alleged, has not produced any evidence. Therefore both the motives projected by the appellant for PW2 to give false complaint against the appellant falls to the ground and cannot be accepted. It is accepted by the appellant that he received a sum of Rs.800/- from PW2. The recovery of Rs.800/- from the appellant was proved through the evidence of PW3 and PW7.
19.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW2 with regard to the date of demand and quantum of the amount demanded. There is also no mention about the demand made by the appellant in the charge. Ex.P2 is the complaint which brings to light the demand made by the appellant. Reading of the complaint shows that PW2 approached appellant for Chitta, Adangal, FMB Sketch and other records on 18.03.2002. Appellant said to have demanded Rs.2,000/-. Then PW2 met the appellant again on 22.03.2002 and he reduced the 15/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 amount to Rs.1,500/-. When he met him again on 27.03.2002, he further reduced the demand of the bribe as Rs.800/-. As PW2 is not willing to give bribe, he gave complaint and trap proceedings were laid.
20.In confirmation with the allegations made in the complaint, PW2 during the course of his evidence stated that on 18.03.2002, appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- on 22.03.2002 appellant demanded Rs.1,200/- and on 27.03.2002 appellant demanded Rs.800/-. Ofcourse there is a minor contradiction in the evidence of PW2 as to the quantum of amount demanded on 22.03.2002. However what we have to consider is whether the appellant demanded illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration for performing his duties as a public servant. Though there is a minor contradiction as stated above with regard to the quantum of bribe amount demanded on 22.03.2002, PW2 confirms the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the demand made on 18.03.2002, 22.03.2002 and 27.03.2002.
21.There is also a correction in the complaint i.e, Wednesday is corrected as Thursday. PW2 explained that he wrote the day wrongly and 16/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 then corrected. This explanation is possible and plausible explanation and an acceptable one. Therefore, the correction of day in the complaint, in the considered view of the Court, will no way create a doubt in the genuineness of the complaint.
22.With regard to the demand of bribe on the date of trap on 28.03.2002, PW 2 and PW3 had given clear evidence that after entering PW2's office in the upper floor, appellant demanded to PW2 as to whether he brought the money demanded by him. Then PW2 handed over the money to the appellant. Appellant received the money, counted it with his right hand and kept it in the right side of the drawer. PW2's evidence is amply supported by the evidence of PW3. Then followed by trap proceedings, Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein test of the fingers of the appellant by PW12. Appellant's right hand fingers and left hand fingers when dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution, the solution turned to pink colour. The evidence of PW11 and Ex.P15 report show that both the solutions used for dipping the appellant's right and left hand fingers tested positive for the presence of Sodium Carbonate Phenolphthalein, confirming thereby that appellant received Rs.800/- from PW2 using his hands. Thus, it 17/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 is clearly established from the evidence of PW2 with regard to demand of illegal gratification by the appellant on 18.03.2002, 22.03.2002, 27.03.2002 and then on 28.03.2002. The demand of bribe amount on 28.03.2002 was corroborated by the evidence of PW3. The acceptance of bribe amount was established by PWs 2 and 3 and its recovery through the evidence of PW3 and 12.
23.With regard to defect in framing charges, the charges read thus:
Kjyhtjhf:- 28/03/2002 Mk; ehs;. 14/05 kzpapypUe;J 14/15 kzpf;Fs;shd ,ilg;gl;l neuj;jpy;. nryk; khtl;lk;. Mj;Jhh; jhYf;fh etf;Fwpr;rp fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s ckJ mYtyfj;jpy;. mnj fpuhkj;ijr; nrh;;e;j bghpaz;zd; vd;gthpd; kfdhd g[fhh;jhuh;
kUij vd;gthplk;. Kiwkhw;wk; bghUj;Jk; kpd;
,izg;g[ (Change over switch)
bgWk;bghUl;L mtuJ jfg;gdhuhd
bghpaz;zd; bgahpy; rpl;lh. ml';fy;. v`g;.
vk;/gp. Efy; kw;Wk; epy clik rhd;wpjH;
Mfpatw;iw nkw;go kUijf;F tH';Ftjw;fhf.
18/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
rl;lg;goahd Cjpaky;yhj btFkjpahd
U:/800-?ia nkw;go kUijaplkpUe;J ePh;
neuoahf Vw;Wf;bfhz;L. mjd;K:ykhf 1988?Mk;
tUlj;jpa Chy; jLg;g[r; rl;lk; 7?MtJ
gphptpd;go jz;og;gjw;FhpaJk;. ,e;j
ePjpkd;wj;jhy; tprhuizf;F
vLj;Jf;bfhs;sj;jf;fJkhd Fw;wbkhd;iwr;
bra;jPh;/
,uz;lhtjhf:- KjyhtJ Fw;wr;rhl;oy;
Twpa[s;sgo 28/03/2003?Mk; ehs;. 1405
kzpapypUe;J 1415 kzpf;Fs;shd ,ilg;gl;l
neuj;jpy;. nryk; khtl;lk;. Mj;Jhh; jhYhf;fh
etf;Fwpr;rp fpuhkj;jpy; cs;s ckJ
mYtyfj;jpy;. mnj fpuhkj;ijr; nrh;e;j
bghpaz;zd; vd;gthpd; kfdhd g[fhh;jhuh;
kUij vd;gthplk;. Kiwkhw;wk; bghUj;Jk; kpd;
,izg;g[ (Change over switch) bgWk;bghUl;L
mtuJ jfg;gdhuhd bghpaz;zd; bgahpy;
rpl;lh. ml';fy;. v`g;/vk;/gp/ efy; kw;Wk; epy
cilik rhd;wpjH; Mfpatw;iw nkw;go
kUijf;F tH';Ftjw;fhf. Chyhd my;yJ
19/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
rl;ltpnuhjkhd tHpfspd; K:ynkh kw;wgonah
bghJ Chpah; vd;w ckJ epiyiaj; jtwhfg;
gad;gLj;jp/ U:/800-?ia nkw;go kUijaplkpe;J
ePh; bgw;Wf;bfhz;L. mjd; K:ykhf 1988 ? Mk;
tUlj;jpa CHy; jLg;g[r; rl;lk; gphpt[ 13(1)(o)
cld; ,ize;j gphpt[ 13(2)?d; go
jz;og;gjw;FhpaJk;. ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jhy;
tprhuizf;F vLj;Jf;bfhs;sj;jf;fJkhd
Fw;wbkd;iwr; bra;jPh;/
kw;Wk; nkw;brhd;d Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fspd; kPJ
ePh;. ,e;j ePjpkd;wj;jpy; tprhuiz bra;ag;gl
ntz;Lbkd;gjhf ,jd;K:yk; ehd;
cj;jutpLfpnwd;.
24.Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of the official Act. It reads as follows:
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such 20/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 duty either by himself or by another public servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequences of accepting an undue advantage from any person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extent to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
To make out a charge as per Section 7 of Prevention Act 1988, it is enough if the accused is put to notice about the fact that he accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person....................... Section 13 deals with criminal misconduct by a public servant. Section 13(1) reads that a public servant is said to have committed offence of criminal misconduct (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for anyother person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7.............
25.Thus, the aforesaid charges framed by the trial Court mostly confirms to the ingredients for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is not necessary to mention minute details in the charge. It is enough if the accused is put on notice about the offences for which he is charged and he is facing trial. That has been sufficiently done in this case. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no apparent error in framing charges against the appellant. Moreover, the appellant has not taken any steps before the trial Court for rectifying the charges if he felt that the charges are defective. In appeal, only if the appellant is able to show that he suffered prejudice on account of the defect 22/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 in charges, the frame of charge can be challenged. The appellant is not able to show any prejudice caused to him due to the alleged defect in framing charges. From the way the witnesses were cross examined, it is evident that the appellant had understood the charges against him that he demanded illegal gratification in performing his official duty as a public servant and accepted, knowing the charges against him, he conducted the trial and cross examined the witnesses. As said earlier, he has not suffered any prejudice on the alleged defect in framing of charges. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for appellant that since there is no specific mention about the demand of bribe in the charges, the charges against the appellant is defective cannot be accepted.
26.There are certain other contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, like contradictions as to the time of giving complaint and the registration of FIR. This Court on going through the records found that Ex.P2 complaint given by PW2 was received by Inspector, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption at 8.30 a.m. on 28.03.2002. It was dispatched to the Court on the same day at 11 hours. It appears that FIR 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 was received in the Court at 3 P.M. Therefore, there is nothing unusual or doubtful with regard to giving the complaint or registration of FIR.
27.The usual practice is to record the contents of the complaint in the vernacular language in the FIR. In the case before hand, the Inspector who registered the FIR, recorded the contents of the complaint in English. It cannot be considered as an illegal act for the reason that Section 154(1) requires only the substance of the information received whether given in writing or reduced to writing be entered in a book to be kept i.e., First Information Report. The FIR form is in English, therefore, it appears that the substance of the information was recorded in English. When the complaint was received at 8.30 a.m. FIR was registered immediately and sent to the Court on the same day, there is no chance for fabrication or alteration in the FIR. Therefore, the doubt entertained by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the registration of complaint and FIR has no basis. The doubt entertained are only doubt without any basis for creating suspicion with regard to doubting the genuineness in registration of FIR.
24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
28.For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no defect in framing of charges against the appellant; the case of the appellant that a sum of Rs.800/- was paid towards the soil conservation scheme deposit due is not true, but it was paid as bribe; this Court finds that the prosecution proved the charges against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant and there is no valid ground for interfering with the judgment of the trial Court. Thus, the points 1 to 3 are answered against the appellants.
29.In the result, this Court confirms the judgment of the trial Court convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him thereon and dismisses this Appeal. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining part of sentence.
22.04.2022
sli
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
25/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.440 of 2015
To
1.The Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Salem.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
26/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 G.CHANDRASEKHARAN,J., sli Pre-Delivery Judgment in Crl.A.No.440 of 2015 22.04.2022 27/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis