Madras High Court
P.Ranganathan vs State By : Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 18 December, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 25.10.2024
Pronounced on : 18.12.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017
P.Ranganathan .... Appellant / Accused
Vs
State by : Deputy Superintendent of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department
Salem at Namakkal.
Cr.No.2/AC/2008 .... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to set
aside the conviction and sentence imposed vide judgment in Spl.C.C.No.2 of
2008 on the file of the Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal, dated
12.10.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.P.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.T.Saravanan
For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate [Criminal Side]
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The lone accused in Special C.C.No.2 of 2008 has come forward with this appeal, challenging his conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w.Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as the sentences imposed on him.
2. The case of the prosecution opens as below :
a) The appellant was working as an Accountant in the District Treasury Office, Namakkal.
b) A certain Varadappan had retired as a drawing teacher from a Government School. He retired in 1997 and has been duly receiving pension. On 15.03.2007, he died. Uptil February 2007, he had received his monthly pension. And for receiving his family pension after his demise, he had nominated his grand daughter Dharanya (P.W.5).
c) Varadappan's son is P.W.2, the defacto complainant, and he is the father of P.W.5, nominee for receiving the family pension. On 26.03.2007, P.W.2 had made Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 applications on behalf of his daughter P.W.5. before the District Treasury Office. 2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017
d) Couple of weeks thereafter, to be precise, on 10.04.2007, he visited the District Treasury Office and met the appellant and discussed the issue. The appellant is alleged to have told P.W.2 to meet him after a week. Accordingly, P.W.2 met the appellant on 17.04.2007, and the appellant was stated to have told P.W.2 that he might have to visit him a week later.
e) Accordingly, on 25.04.2007 at around 2.00 p.m., P.W.2 met the appellant at his office and the appellant is alleged to have demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for passing the papers. P.W.2 is stated to have negotiated the bribe amount and brought it down to Rs.800/-. This was the first demand for bribe. The appellant would now require P.W.2 to meet him two days later.
f) Thereafter, on 27.04.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.2 visited the appellant again and the appellant reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.800/-. This is the second demand for bribe.
g) On 02.05.2007, at around 2.30 p.m., P.W.2 met the appellant with the money but the appellant asked him to come on the following day (03.05.2007).
h) On 03.05.2007, P.W.2 chose to approach the respondent-police with his 3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 Ext.P5 complaint, receiving which P.W.10 registered Ext.P17 FIR. Soon P.W.10 swung into action for trapping the appellant and this proceedings took a while till around 5.15 p.m. in the evening. P.W.10 then went to the office of the appellant. As was earlier planned, the bribe money of Rs.800/- (comprised of Rs.100 x 8) smeared with phenolphthalein powder was entrusted to P.W.2 vide Ext.P6 entrustment magazar.
i) Along with P.W.2, P.W.10 also sent P.W.3 the official witness. P.W.2 had tendered the planted currencies, and the appellant had received it, counted it, went to a certain room in his office, and handed it over to P.W.4, a temporary assistant of the appellant.
j) Without any loss of time, P.W.2 alerted P.W.10, and soon P.W.10 arrived at the scene, conducted the trap-test, and it proved positive. P.W.10 would then proceed to complete his post-trap protocol, inter alia seized the planted currencies (M.O 3) under Ext.P10 seizure magazar.
k) P.W.11 would take over the investigation, examined the witnesses and laid his final report.
4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 3.1 Based on the final report, the Special Court framed charges against the appellant for offences under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11, marked Exts.P1 to P25, and M.O.1 to M.O.9. For the defence, there was no oral evidence, but it has produced Exts.D1 to D3. 3.2 The trial proceeded and on appreciation of evidence, the learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of both the charges framed against him and sentenced him as below :
Case No. Offences Sentences Section 7 of Prevention Two years rigorous imprisonment with of Corruption Act fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2008 Section 13(2) Two years rigorous imprisonment with r/w.Sec.13(1)(d) of fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Prevention of Corruption one month rigorous imprisonment Act The sentences are directed to run concurrently. This judgment of the trial Court is now under challenge.
4. Thiru.John Sathyan, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted:
a) According to the prosecution, on 25.04.2007, the appellant had made the first demand of Rs.1,000/- as bribe which was later brought down to 5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 Rs.800/- after negotiation. However, P.W.2 has deposed that he had first met the appellant even on 26.03.2007, the date on which he had made Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 applications, then on 10.04.2007, and again on 17.04.2007. On none of these dates prior to 25.04.2007, was there any demand, even according to the prosecution and the demand for bribe was made only on 25.04.2007 for doing favours vis-a-vis Ext.P3 and Ext.P4 applications.
b) On the side of the defence, Ext.D2 had been marked, which are the forms enclosed with the applications for family pension. These enclosures (Ext.D2) comprise of Form-A, Form-II and Form-H. In Form-A and Form-H, P.W.5 had given her date of birth as 02.06.1989, which date she affirms even in her testimony. However in Form-II, she had given her date of birth as 02.09.1989. Keeping aside this discrepancy, according to the testimony of P.W.6, the Treasury Officer, no pensionary benefits can be given to a minor. This would imply that no family pensionary benefits could be given to P.W.5 before 02.06.2007. Here the alleged demand and the very trap had taken place in April 2007 and May 2007. Therefore, even if the intent of P.W.2 was to secure some benefit in April 2007 or May 2007, still the 6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 appellant was not in a position to help. If an offence has to be constituted under Section 7 of the Act, then money must be received for one's own self or on behalf of the another for doing an favourable job officially to the bribe giver. When the appellant was not even in a position to help P.W.2, in view of the minority of his daughter and also due to the discrepancy in stating the date of birth of P.W.5 in Ext.D2, the money alleged to have been given by P.W.2 cannot be equated to a bribe for doing an official favour to P.W.2 or P.W.5.
c) P.W.2 in his testimony would depose that he had tendered Rs.100 x 8 notes (M.O.3) to the appellant, that the appellant had counted the same, went to a certain room in his office and handed over the planted money to P.W.4, a temporary assistant of his. And P.W.4 had received the money and put it in his pant pocket. And, P.W.10 had eventually recovered the money only from P.W.4. However, during seizure, whereas P.W.2 was alleged to have given only Rs.800/- (M.O.3) to appellant, what was recovered from P.W.4 was Rs.2,000/-, which the prosecution had included M.O.3. And there is no case for the prosecution that P.W.2 had paid Rs.2,000/-, and Ext.P10 seizure mahazar was particularly silent on the additional Rs.1,200/- seized from 7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 P.W.4. And P.W.4 does not claim the excess money seized as his either. And P.W.4 in his testimony makes a statement that the prosecution had recovered Rs.2,000/- from him. For making this solitary statement in his testimony, P.W.4 was declared hostile midway through his chief- examination by the prosecution. The difference between the planted currencies and that which the TLO had seized was Rs.1,200/- this was completely screened in Ext.P10 seizure mahazar. In this regard, it may be contextually relevant to refer to Ext.D3. This statement of the appellant was recorded by P.W.11 in the course of his investigation, a day after he was arrested. In his statement he would state that he had received Rs.2,000/- from P.W.2 which he had passed it on to P.W.4. To underscore, this statement was made after the appellant was arrested, and on the following day, and hence he could not have consulted P.W.4 to make a false statement.
d) On the point of trap, the prosecution had not been able to explain how Rs.1,200/- came into being, then the quality of trap itself becomes suspicious. Turning as to why the appellant had actually received the money and why P.W.4 was in need of money is concerned P.W.4 had required some loan from the appellant. Now, since P.W.2 had been 8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 visiting and meeting the appellant few times prior to 25.04.2007, P.W.4 had developed an acquaintance with the former, and what at the time of trap when P.W.2 paid the money, appellant thought it to be the loan that P.W.2 was giving P.W.4, and received it, for it to be paid to P.W.4. It is because the money was loan money, the appellant on receiving it had passed on the same to P.W.4.
e) P.W.4 during the cross-examination by the prosecution after he was declared hostile, had made a statement that indeed he had handed over Rs.2,425/- to the TLO, of which, Rs.425/- was his own money and the remaining Rs.2,000/- belonged to the appellant. Explaining the same in his cross-examination by the appellant, P.W.4 would depose that he was working as a temporary 'unofficial' assistant in the Treasury office for close to ten years owing to severe shortage of work force in that office. Indeed, according to P.W.4, as against the sanctioned strength of 46 posts, only 16 posts were filled. While he was working thus, he became acquainted with P.W.2 and sought a loan of Rs.5,000/- from P.W.2 towards impending education expenses of his children. It is hence on 03.05.2007, when P.W.2 paid whatever money he could give as loan, it was handed over immediately by the appellant to him (P.W.4). 9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 Therefore what in essence was only a loan transaction between P.W.4 and P.W.2, and it was dubbed as a transaction for payment and acceptance of bribe, merely because appellant had unnecessarily received the money and handed it over to P.W.4. At the best, the appellant may be considered as imprudent but never can a criminal liability be attributed to him.
5. Per contra, the learned Prosecutor submitted that irrespective of the amount which the appellant had actually handed over to P.W.4, and what P.W.4 had handed over to TLO, what concerns the prosecution is whether Rs.800/- which was intended to be paid as bribe was received by the appellant. Secondly, if it were only the loan transaction between P.W.2 and P.W.4, then P.W.2 as well could have paid the money to P.W.4, and there is hardly any need for him to route the money through the appellant. So far as the contention of the appellant that the prosecution had screened Rs.1,200/- is concerned, as submitted earlier, it is not so much about what was recovered, but whether the tainted currencies were received. Discussion & Decision:
6. The appellant's contention rests on two points: (a) that the appellant could not have helped P.W.2 before June, 2007; and (b) that out of Rs.2,000/- which P.W.2 10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 had paid the appellant who in turn had handed it over to P.W.4, the prosecution had not explained Rs.1,200/- which the appellant had left with P.W.4. Its sustainability will be now discussed:
a) So far as the first ground is concerned, it is not the case of the appellant that he had no duty in processing Exts.P3 and P4 applications. His contention is that in April-May, 2007 he could not have helped P.W.2 even if he had intended to do an official favour. More so because there were certain erroneous entries in Ext.D2 enclosures to the application forms. What is significant is that the job had not been done yet, and the appellant did not dispute that he had no role in it. The errors in Ext.D2 could be cured at any time subsequently. Otherwise, appellant could have returned the papers citing the errors. This apparently was not done. Plainly this point fails to carry conviction with this Court.
b) Turning to the second point, that only the appellant had made the statement that P.W.2 had paid Rs.2,000/- to him which he had handed over to P.W.4.
But was Rs.2,000/- actually paid? When P.W.2 was confronted about this fact, he had vehemently denied it. And, the suggestion to P.W.2 was that he had given the complaint at the instance of P.W.4 who nurtured enmity 11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 with the appellant. But when P.W.4 was cross examined, the theory of enmity between him and the appellant was not posed to him. P.W.3 is a neutral witness. He in his cross examination has very categorically testified that he was sure that only Rs.800/- was entrusted by the TLO to P.W.2. It should not be forgotten, Ext.D3 statement was made by the appellant, not contemporaneously with the trap, but only on the following day. He still had time to regroup himself to device a statement. It is his assertion and he should prove that P.W.2 had actually paid Rs.2,000/-. And, so far as the role of P.W.4 is concerned, the appellant's stands was ambivalent – was he inimical towards the appellant, or was he neutral? The appellant has to define it. And when he says that Rs.2000/- was recovered, then he should establish that the appellant had given him Rs.2,000/-. This is because when the prosecution says that it had not planted anything more than Rs.800/- that it had not recovered anything more than Rs.800/- under Ext.P10, it cannot be called upon to prove the negative that it did not recover Rs.2,000/-. The burden is obviously on the appellant to prove his assertion, and the efforts of the appellant is far too inadequate to rescue him.
12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017
7. To conclude, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2008 on the file of Special Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Namakkal, convicting the accused is hereby confirmed. His sentence on both the score is reduced to one year SI but the sentence of fine imposed on him along with the default sentence is confirmed. His bail bond is cancelled, and he is required to surrender before the trial Court on or before 20.01.2025, and on his failure to surrender, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellant/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
18.12.2024 Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No ds To:
1.The Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate Namakkal.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
13/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Criminal Appeal No.710 of 2017 N.SESHASAYEE.J., ds Pre-delivery Judgment in Crl.A.No.710 of 2017 18.12.2024 15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis