Madras High Court
R.Balasubramanian vs State Represented By Its on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 10.01.2025
Pronounced on : 15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330 & 331 of 2018
R.Balasubramanian ... Appellant/Accused No.1
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.330 of 2018)
Karnan ... Appellant/Accused No.2
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2018)
Vs.
State represented by its,
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.4 of 2014) ... Respondent/Complainant
(In both appeals)
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section
374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Special
Case No.6 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge Cum Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, and
set aside the judgment dated 29.06.2018 and acquit the
accused/appellants.
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
For appellant : Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram,
Senior Counsel
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.330 of 2018)
For appellant : Mr.S.Vinayak
(In Crl.A.(MD).No.331 of 2018)
For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
( In both Appeals)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants/A1&A2 in Spl.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, have filed these appeals challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against them under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Since the appellants in both the appeals were arrayed as accused in the same crime number, these appeals are taken up together for hearing and disposed of by way of this common judgment. 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.330 of 2018 was arraigned as A1 and the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.331 of 2018 was arraigned as A2. At the time of occurrence, A1 was working as Firka Surveyor at Chengipatti, Poothalur Taluk, Thanjavur District, and A2 is a private person. P.W.2 is native of Pudukudi Village. His mother namely, Chelin purchased a land from one Soundaravalli, comprised in S.No.209/3 at Pudukudi Village. Since there was a joint patta in the name of the original owner and her vendor, P.W.2 on behalf of her mother gave an application to the office of Tahsildar, Thanjavur, seeking separate patta.
Due to bifurcation of Taluk, the same was transferred to the Tahsildar, Poothalur Taluk, Thanjavur District. Thereafter, it was made over to A1, who was working as Firka Surveyor at the same Taluk. After receiving the file, A1 forwarded the file to the concerned Village Administrative Officer to proceed further. Thereafter, the Village Administrative Officer perused the same and recommended for sub division and grant of patta and the same was forwarded to A1. A1 in turn, sent the same to the Tahsildar office. The Tahsildar office considered the same and passed the 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 order of sub division and the said sub division order was also communicated to the mother of P.W.2. In such circumstances, the appellant is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to submit his report. Therefore, P.W.2 lodged a complaint to the respondent/Vigilance Department namely, P.W.16/Trap Laying Officer. After receiving the complaint from P.W.2, he registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2014 for the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2), 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After registration of the case, P.W.16 made preliminary enquiry and followed the pre trap procedure and he called two officials namely, P.W.3 and another official witness. After arrival of P.W.3 and another official witness, P.W.16 demonstrated the siginificance of the phenolphthalein test to P.W.2 with the amount brought by him in the presence of P.W.3 and another official witness and thereafter, he prepared the Entrustment Mahazar, Ex.P.5. After preparation of the Enstrustment Mahazar, P.W.16 instructed P.W.2 to hand over the tainted amount to the appellant/A1, if he makes a demand and upon receipt of the said amount, instructed P.W.2 to give signal.
Further, he instructed P.W.3 to go along with P.W.2 and keep an eye on 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 the events that would be happening during handing over of the said bribe amount to A1. Thereafter, the trap team along with P.W.2, P.W.3 and another official witness reached the office of A1. P.W.2 and P.W.3 entered into the office and also met A1 at his place. At that time, A1 reiterated the demand and asked P.W.2 to hand over money to A2. A2 also received the amount and put it in his right side back pant pocket and the same was witnessed by P.W.3. Thereafter, P.W.2 gave the signal to P.W.16 and his team and on receiving the signal, P.W.16 and his team entered into the office of A1 along with P.W.2. P.W.2 identified A1 & A2. Thereafter, P.W.16 conducted the phenolphthalein test in the hands of A2 and the hand wash of A2 turned into pink in colour. On ascertaining the handling of the bribe amount by A2, P.W.16 questioned about the bribe amount, which was received from P.W.2. A2 handed over the bribe amount to P.W.16 and the same was verified with the Entrustment Mahazar. Thereafter, P.W.16, conducted the phenolphthalein test in A2's right side back pant pocket and the said wash turned into pink in colour. After completion of the above test, P.W.16 arrested the accused and prepared the Recovery Mahazar under 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 Ex.P.9 and also collected the documents from A1 & A2. Thereafter, P.W. 16 conducted search in the house of A1 and found a document and then, P.W.16 sent A1 & A2 for the reamand. Thereafter, he prepared the observation mahazar, namely, Ex.P.10 as well as Rough Sketch. On the following day, P.W.16 handed over the records to P.W.17, the Investigating Officer.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.17 filed the final report against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and against the appellant/A2 for the offence under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. The learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, took the final report on file in Spl.C.C.No. of 2015. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the A1 & A2, framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A1 and framed charge under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against A2 and the same were read over and explained to them and on being questioned, they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 18 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and exhibited 28 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 and marked five material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials available against them in the prosecution evidence. They denied the same as false and they neither examined any witness nor produced any documents on their side.
6.1. The learned Special Judge, upon considering the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments on either side, passed the impugned judgment, on 29.06.2018 and convicted A1 for the offences 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and further directed the sentences to run concurrently.
6.2. Similarly, convicted appellant/A2 for the offence under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred these separate appeals. 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 8.1. Thiru.R.Shammuga Sundaram, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.330 of 2018 submitted that the charge is that A1 demanded the bribe amount for sub division. The appellant recommended the application as earlier as on 12.05.2014 and the recommendation was forwarded to the next higher level officer namely, the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar also passed the order on 14.07.2014 and the order of the Tahsildar was also communicated to the mother of P.W.2. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the appellant/A1 had demanded the bribe amount to recommend for sub division is false one and hence, there was no official relationship between A1 and the complainant to demand money for recommendation.
8.2. According to the learned senior counsel, the specific charge is that “ePh; nkw;go gl;lh kPJ tprhuiz bra;J 'ghpe;Jiu' bra;a ckf;F ifa{l;lhf U:gha; 1000 ntz;Lbkd;W nfl;L>” and hence, the charge is only for 'recommending'. But, P.W.2 has stated differently that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- for issuing patta, whcih is not in consonance with the allegation made in the charge. The appellant is not 9/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 the competent authority to issue patta and he is only the recommending authority to issue patta and he is also not the authority to issue a copy of patta. Therefore, without charge against the appellant that he had demanded money to issue patta, the conviction passed against the appellant is not legally correct.
8.3. The learned senior counsel also submitted that when the appellant lacks authority to issue patta, the case of the prosecution that he demanded money to issue patta in the peculiar circumstances of the present case is not legally maintainable. If the charge had been framed that the appellant had demanded money to issue patta then the case of the prosecution can stand. But, here, the charge itself is only to 'recommend' and the same was done much earlier in the month of 2014. The sub division order and separate patta order was passed by the Tahsildar on 14.07.2014 and the same was also communicated to the mother of P.W.2. Therefore, there was no official relationship between A1 and P.W.2. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against A1 is liable to be set aside.
10/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 8.4. The learned senior counsel reading through the entire eivdence and material documents submitted that in this case, the prosecution failed to prove that there was an official relationship between A1and P.W.2 and the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. In this case, the amount was not received by A1. The amount was received by A2. According to the prosecution, A1 directed P.W.2 to hand over the amount to A2. To prove the said chain of events, no credible evidence was adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution never produced any evidence to prove that A2 is a surrogate of A1. Without any link between A2 and A1, the case of the prosecution that the appellant/A1 is said to have committed the offence under Section 13(1)
(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is not legally maintainable.
8.5. The learned senior counsel also brought to the notice of this Court number of material inconsistencies between the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.16 relating to the preparation of entrustment mahazar, recovery mahazar and conducting the trap proceedings. 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 8.6. The learned senior counsel also brought out the inconsistencies between the evidence of the official witnesses namely, P.W.4 and P.W.14 relating to the recommendation made by the appellant to sub divide and grant patta. Therefore, he submitted that the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
9.1. Thiru.S.Vinayak, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A2 in Crl.A(MD)No.331 of 2018 submitted that to constitute the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution failed to prove that A2 acted as a conduit for A1. He also submitted that no evidence was adduced to prove the link between A1 and A2.
9.2. The learned counsel further submitted that mere recovery of the amount from A2, is not sufficient to fix the culpability upon the appellant under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 9.3. The learned counsel further submitted that when the offence against A1 is not made out, the abetment charge against A2 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, will not lie. A2 specifically stated that P.W.2 is known to him and he handed over the alleged amount of Rs.1,000/- to him and asked him to keep the same for safe custody and thereafter, the Vigilance Department came to the occurrence place and recovered the amount. The prosecution evidcence also supported the said version that both P.W.2 and A2 are from the same village and hence, A2 is no way connected with A1. Hence, he prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trail Judge.
10.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the explanation, which was given under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was to be properly considered. It is true that the charge is only for recommending for the sub division of land. But, evidence was adduced otherwise to show that the demand and acceptance was for issuing patta. Therefore, the appellant is said to have received the bribe amount through A2 and 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 hence, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is clearly made out.
10.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pal Singh And Another Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 11 SCC 508 and stated that when there was defect in charge, the Court must see whether any prejudice was caused to the accused. In this case, the accused neither established the miscarriage of justice nor established failure of justice on the part of the Court in framing the proper charge. Both the defence counsel who appeared on behalf of A1 and A2 understood the case and conducted trial as if the entire bribe amount was demanded for issuance of patta. In the said circumstances, there was no infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Judge in conviting the appellant/A1 in Crl.A(MD)No. 330 of 2018 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellant/A2 in Crl.A(MD)No.330 of 2018 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 are cogent and 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 trustworthy. They were subjected to incisive cross-examination. But, however, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. In the said circumnstances, the prosecution clearly proved the charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
10.3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the material document namely, the file relating to the transfer of patta was recovered from the house of A1. If the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/A1 is that he has no authority to issue patta, then the possession of the material document in the custody of A1 should have been properly explained by A1. The said recovery is a material circumstance to prove the prosecution case. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeals by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants.
11. This Court perused the rival submissions and perued the records and the precedents relied upon by the counsels. 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
12. The question arising for consideration in these appeals are whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the impugned judgment is in accordance with law?
13. The charge framed against the appellants is as follows:-
cq;fspy; 1tJ vjphp jQ;rht{h; khtl;lk; g{jYh;
jhYfh> brq;fpgl;lapy; gph;fh rh;ntauhf 09.07.2013 Kjy; gzpapy; ,Ue;J te;j epiyapy; fle;j 05.02.2014 md;W kDjhuh; b$uhy;L gpuhq;f;spd; vd;gth; mtuJ jhahh; g[Jf;Foapy; brse;juts;sp vdgthplkpUe;J rh;nt vz;. 209/3y; thq;fpapUe;j 50 brd;l; epyj;jpw;F mtuJ jhahh; bryp;d; vd;gth; bgahpy; jdpg;gl;lh nfhhp; jQ;rht{h; tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; kD bfhLj;Js;shh;. nkw;go kD g{jYh; jhYfh mYtyfj;jpw;F mDg;gg;gl;L;s;sJ. me;j kDit tprhhpj;J ghpe;Jiu bra;a ck;kplk; tug;gl;l rk;ke;jkhf g[fhh;jhuh; ck;ik mZfp tprhhpj;j nghJ> ePh; ntz;Lbkd;nw fhyjhkjk; bra;Js;sPh;. gpd;dh;> 21.07.2014 md;W> g[fhh;jhuh; nkw;go kD rk;ge;jkhf ck;ik tprhhpj;jnghJ> ePh; nkw;go gl;lh kPJ tprhuiz bra;J ghpe;Jiu bra;a ckf;F ifa{l;lhf U: 1000/-
ntz;Lbkd;W nfl;L mjid tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfk;
mUfpy; epd;W bfhz;oUe;j> mtUf;F mwpKfkhd kw;Wk; mtUf;F cjtpfs; g[hpa[k; 2tJ vjphpapd; K:ykhf 22.07/2014 md;W fhiy 1045 kzpf;Fg; bgw;Wf;
bfhz;Ls;sPh;.
14. It is evident from above charge, it is the specific case of the prosecution case that “to make the recommendation”, the amount was demanded and accepted.
16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
15. According to the learned senior counsel, in the complaint and FIR, it is specifically stated that the appellant is said to have demanded the amount for sending the report to the Tahsildar Office for further action. The relevant portion of the FIR is as follows:-
,d;W 21.07.2014k; njjp ehd; g{jYh; jhYfh mYtyfk; brd;W fhiy 11.30 kzpf;F mq;fpUe;j brq;fpgl;o rh;ntah; jpU.ghyRg;ukzpak; mth;fis ghh;j;J upg;nghh;l; buoahfp tpl;ljh vd;W nfl;nld;. mjw;F rh;ntah; ghyRg;ukzpak; Rk;kh Rk;kh ntWk;
ifnahL te;J ghh;j;jhy; fijf;F MfhJ U: 1000/-
mtUf;F bfh:z;L te;J bfhLj;jhy;jhd; upg;nghh;l; mDg;gp itg;ngd; vd;Wk;> ehis fhiy g{jYh; jhYfh mYtyfk; te;J mthplk; U: 1000/- gzj;ij bfhLf;f brhd;dhh;. mjw;F ehd; rhp ghh;f;fpnwd; vd;W Twptpl;L te;Jtpl;nld;. brq;fpgl;o rh;ntah;
jpU.ghyRg;ukzpad; nfl;l U: 1000/- yQ;r gzj;ij bfhLj;J jdp gl;lh bgw vdf;F tpUg;gk; ,y;iy.
mjdhy; mth; kPJ eltof;if vLf;f Kot[ bra;J mth; nfl;l yQ;r gzk; U: 1000/-Vw;ghL bra;J bfhz;L te;Js;nsd;. vd;dplk; yQ;rk; nfl;l brq;fpgl;o rh;ntah; jpU.ghyRg;ukzpad; kPJ eltof;if vLf;Fk;go nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;.
16. From the above charge, FIR and the final report, it is clear that “to make recommendation”, the appellant is said to have demanded the bribe amount. But, P.W.2 in his evidence during the course of trial stated that it is not to make recommendation but 'to change and give patta”.17/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 P.W.2 also in his cross-examination admitted that A1 demanded the amount only for sending report and the same is as follows:-
vd; jhahhpd; ,lj;ij mse;J mjw;Fhpa hpg;nghh;l;il mDg;g[tjw;fhf yQ;rk; nfl;ljhf g[fhhpy; brhy;ypa[s;nsd;. nk khjj;jpnyna Kjy; vjphp vd;Dila jhahhpd; epyj;ij mse;J hpg;nghh;l;il jhrpy;jhUf;F mDg;gp $#d; khjj;jpy; tl;lhl;rpauhy; vd; jhahh; bgaUf;F jdpg;gl;lh tHq;f cj;jut[ nghl;Ls;sJ vd;w tptuk; vdf;F bjhpate;jjh vd;why; ,y;iy.
17. P.W.3's evidence is contrary to the charge. The learned trial Judge, in paragraph No.31 of the judgment stated that “A1 demanded the amount for giving separate patta”. In this case, according to the learned senior counsel, survey was already completed and report was also submitted to the Tahsildar. In turn, the Tahsildar also acted on the basis of the report and passed a separate order to issue patta. In the said circumtances, the case of P.W.1 is false. To consider the said submission, this Court feels necessary to extract the following dates and events:-
Dates Event
30.07.2000 Land in Survey No.209/3, Puthukudi North side, Budalur
purchased by Selin, Mother of P.W.2
04.02.2014 Challan at SBI, VOC Nagar
05.02.2014 Application Submitted
18/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
17.02.2014 P.W.6 handed over to P.W.7/Anandharaj in Survey
Section
03.03.2014 A1 had received the Application and handed over to
newly created Budalur Tahsildar Office
17.03.2014 A1 had received the Application for Processing
12.05.2014 A1 had sent the Report along with Application
16.05.2014 File received from Computer Section
22.05.2014 P.W.10 had endorsed in the Application and Report
22.05.2014 File sent for Fair copy
16.06.2014 Order passed by the Tahsildar and Endorsement in the
File; The copy addressed to selin, Mother of P.W.2 14.07.2014 A1 had received the Tahsildar's Order 21.07.2014 Demand Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification by A1 21.07.2014 Complaint presented by P.W.2 before V & AC 21.07.2014 FIR in Crime No.4 of 2014, V & AC, Thanjavur
18. From the above dates and events, it is seen that A1 sent the report to the Tahsildar on 12.05.2014. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an order on 16.06.2014. The same also was communicated to the mother of P.W.2. The corresponding endorsement has been also made in the said document. The application was processed through passing of file from P.W.5 to P.W.8. The order was passed much earlier to the demand. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.3 that the amount was received to issue a separate patta is not acceptable.
19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018
19. The evidence of prosecution must be in line with the charge. Charge is only “for making recommendation”. The recommendation was made much earlier on 15.05.2014. The same was acted upon and separate order was passed. From the records and also the evidence, it is clear that the role of the appellant/A1 is only to make survey and not to issue patta. In the peculier circumstances of the case, the said official capacity of appellant/A1 is material one. The appellant/A1 has no authority to issue a patta and his only duty is to take measurement. He also completed the same, much earlier i.e., on 12.05.2014. Hence, the case of P.W.2 that the appellant/A1 demanded the amount for recommendation is not accepted. The evidence of P.W.3 that he demanded money “for issuing patta” is not a consonance with the charge.
20. P.W.1/Sanctinoning Authority in his evidence, specifically stated as follows:-
gl;lh tHq;Fk; mjpfhuk; tl;lhl;rpaUf;F jhd;
cz;L vd;why; Mkhk;. rk;ke;jg;gl;l epyj;ij mse;J mJFwpj;j mwpf;ifia tl;lhl;rpaUf;F mspg;gJjhd; xU rh;ntahpd; ntiy vd;why; Mkhk;. ,e;j tHf;fpy; Kjy; vjphp rk;ke;jg;gl;l epyj;ij mse;J tl;lhl;rpaUf;F mwpf;if rkh;g;gpj;Js;shuh vd;why; Kjy; vjphp mspj;j 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 mwpf;ifapd; mog;gilapy; gl;lh tHq;fyhk; vd jhrpy;jhh; bray;Kiw Mizfs; gpwg;gpj;Jtpl;lhh;. tHf;F Mtzq;fspd;go rh;ntah; epyj;ij mse;J mwpf;if tl;lhl;rpaUf;F rkh;gpj;j gpwF> g[fhh;jhuhplk; yQ;rk; nfl;ljhfj;jhd; cs;sJ vd;why; Mkhk;. tl;lhl;rpahpd; bray;Kiw Mizfis mspg;gjw;fhf g[fhh;jhuhplk; Kjy; vjphp gzk; nfl;Ls;shh;. Kjy; vjphp gzk; nfl;ljhf brhy;yg;gLk; njjpf;F Kd;ng gl;lh tHq;f tl;lhl;rpauhy; cj;jut[ gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;why; Mkhk;. kD bra;a[k; xU egUf;F gl;lhit tHq;Fk; mjpfhuk;
tl;lhl;rpaUf;F jhd; cz;L vd;why; Mkhk;. m gjpntl;oy; gjpa ntz;oaJ kl;Lk;jhd; rh;ntahpd; ntiy vd;why; m gjpntL> g[yg;glk;> rpl;lh> mlq;fy;
nghd;wtw;wpy; gjpantz;oaJk; rh;ntahpd; ntiy.
21. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 are totally against the terms of the complaint, FIR and final report and the charge framed by the Court. The learned trial Judge has also passed the conviction on the basis of the allegation which are not part of the FIR and final report. The prosecution must adduce the evidence to prove the charge as stated in the earlier Constitution Bench in the Willie (William) Slaney vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1956 Sc 116 which has held that 'absence of charge is material allegation'. If the charge is framed with the material particulars and the accused understands the nature of the allegation, then it is entirely different aspect. Here, the specific case of the prosecution is that the accused 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 demanded the amount for recommendation. This Court perused the complaint, FIR and final report and charge framed. In the above documents, no where it is found that the accused/A1 demanded money for the issuance of patta. There is irreconcilable difference between making recommendation and issuing patta. Here the role of the appellant/A1 is to make the recommendation. It is admitted case of the prosecution that A1 has no authority to issue patta. In the said circumstance, prosecution miserably failed to prove that the appellant demanded money to issue patta and also received the amount through A2 to grant patta.
22. It is true that copy of patta was recovered from A1's house. But, the evidence of P.W.3 is that after the order of Thasildar, a copy of the patta will be sent to the Surveyor, Village Administrative Officer and also to the applicant. In the said circumstances, keeping a copy of the patta in the custody of A1 is not significant to presume that he demanded money for issuing the patta. When the Tahsildar himself passed the order and the same was communicated to mother of P.W.2, 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 this Court finds that no offence is made out against the appellant/A1 either under Section 7 or 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
23. A2 is concerned, the amount was recovered from him. He gave an explanation that P.W.2 handed over the amount to him without disclosing anything and he also left the office hurriedly and thereafter, the police officer came and recovered the amount. Further, he has specifically stated that he does not know A1 and there is no reletionship between A1 and A2. The said explanation is a plausible one. Mere recovery of amount from A2 without any evidence to link his relationship with A1 is not sufficient to convict A2 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Neither any scrap of material was produced nor any circumstances established to presume A2 received the amount with required knowledge that the amount was bribe amount to be paid to A1. From the isolated and unconnected circumstance of recovery of amount, it cannot be presumed that A2 received the bribe amount on behalf of A1. Hence, in all circumstances, the prosecution has not 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 proved the case against A2 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In this case, the prosecution miscerably failed to prove the relationship between A1 & A2 and A1 directed A2 to receive the bribe amount.
24. In the said circumstance, this Court is inclined to accept the argument of Thiru.S.Vinayak, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.331 of 2018.
25. In view of the same, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants is not legally maintainable and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
26. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals are allowed on the folowing terms:-
20.1.The judgment passed by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, in Spl.C.No.6 of 2015 dated 29.06.2018, is set aside.24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 20.2.The appellants are acquitted from all the charges in Spl.C.No.6 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
20.3.Fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them forthwith.
20.4. Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.
15.05.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
dss
To:-
1. The Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Thanjavur, Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
25/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330, 331 of 2018 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss Crl.A.(MD).Nos.330 & 331 of 2018 15.05.2025 26/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 22/05/2025 02:32:15 pm )