Madras High Court
State Represented By vs / on 4 January, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.01.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.A.(MD)No.355 of 2010
State represented by:
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anticorruption,
Tiruchirappalli
(Crime No.22/99) ...Appellant / Complainant
/Vs./
1.C.R.Kannan
2.P.Muthuveeran ...Respondents / accused
Prayer: Appeal – filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated
10.02.2010 in special case No.10 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Trichirappalli and to set aside the
judgment of the lower Court and convict the respondent / accused asa
charged.
For Appellant : Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : Mr.Senthil Kumar
JUDGMENT
The criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of the acquittal passed in Special Case No.10 of 2001 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 10.02.2010. http://www.judis.nic.in 2
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 25.10.1999, the first respondent was working as the Special Sub Inspector of Police and the second respondent was working as a Head Constable in Thathiangarpettai Police Station, Trichy District. Prior to the date of occurrence, the father and uncle of the de facto complainant [P.W.2] were taken to custody by both the respondents. On 25.10.1999, P.W.2 met the first respondent at about 04.00 p.m., in the respondent Police Station. The first respondent asked P.W.2 as to why he did not pay mamool when he permitted him to sell arrack. The father and uncle of P.W.2 were charged under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and P.W.2 was directed to convince his father and uncle to admit the offence and pay the fine in Court and P.W.2 was asked to come and meet the respondents. On 25.10.1999, when P.W.2 met the first respondent in the Police Station, the 1st respondent demanded a bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- for not foisting a poisonous arrack case on him and for Deepavali mamool also. The second respondent persuaded the 1st respondent to reduce the amount. Subsequently, the 1st respondent reduced the bribe amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. The 2 nd respondent separately demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe from P.W.2 for recommending and reducing the bribe amount. The 1st respondent directed P.W.2 to bring the bribe amount before the evening of 25.10.1999 and give it to him and told that if he is not present, to give the bribe amount to the 2 nd respondent. Since the de facto complainant was unwilling to pay any bribe to the respondents, he went to the Office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirappalli http://www.judis.nic.in on 25.10.1999 and gave a written complaint against the 3 respondents seeking for taking action against them.
3. Based on the complaint, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirappalli in Crime No.22 of 1999. After registration of the First Information Report, a trap was planned. On the same day, at 06.15 p.m., as instructed by the appellant, the de facto complainant along with PW.3-shadow witness went inside the police station and met the respondents. Since the respondents asked them to wait outside, both of them came out and waited outside. Again, they went inside voluntarily and at that time, there was electricity failure. Then, the respondents demanded money and P.W.2 handed over the money to the 1st respondent. At that time, the 1st respondent told P.W.2 to give the money to the 2nd respondent. The second respondent also received the money for himself and also for the 1st respondent. Therefore, after coming out of the room, P.W.2 gave pre-arranged signal. Immediately, P.W.13-Trap Laying Officer entered into the office of the respondents, introduced himself and asked the second respondent to dip his hands in Sodium Carbonate Solution, which turned pink in colour. Then, P.W.13 recovered tainted money. The serial number of currency notes were compared and found to be tallied with the entrustment mahazar. The tainted money was recovered through recovery mahazar in the presence of the independent witness and signatures were obtained from the witness and from the respondents, subsequently, entrusted to the Investigation Officer. After completion of the investigation, http://www.judis.nic.in a charge sheet was laid against the respondents in Special 4 Case No.10 of 2001, under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.15, 61 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P61 and 7 material objects were exhibited.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, when the incriminating materials culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the respondents / accused, the respondents denied them as false. On the side of the respondents, only one witness was examined as D.W.1. No document was marked to establish their defence.
6. After hearing the arguments and also considering the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Special Judge found the respondents not guilty and acquitted the respondents. Against the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Special http://www.judis.nic.in Judge has given importance to the irrelevant and immaterial 5 contradictions. Further, P.W.2-Defacto Complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. Though P.W.2, in the cross-examination, has stated that the respondents did not demand money and he only voluntarily kept the money on the table of the respondents, P.W.2 admitted that the respondents demanded money and therefore, gave the complaint. P.W.3-Independent witness known as the shadow witness accompanied with P.W.2 and P.W.4- official independent witness accompanied with P.W.13-trap laying officer. From the evidence of P.Ws.2,3 and 4, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, even though P.W.2 has partially not supported the case of the prosecution. But, so far as the demand and acceptance is concerned, he has stated that earlier the respondents demanded and therefore, he preferred a complaint before the appellant police Station. It is a well settled proposition of law that even though witness turned hostile, his evidence need not be ignored totally. The appellant proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge failed to consider the importance of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, the order passed in Special Case No.10 of 2001 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli, dated 10.02.2010 warrants interference of this Court and he prayed this Court to allow this appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents never demanded any bribe on any occasion. The father and uncle of P.W.2 were arrested on 12.10.1999 during the prohibition ride. But, P.W.2 http://www.judis.nic.in never came to the Police station prior to 25.10.1999 and on 6 25.10.1999, P.W.2 met the respondents with regard to the case against his father and uncle. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were close friends. Prior to 25.10.1999, P.W.2 requested P.W.3 to come and talk to the respondents on his behalf to withdraw the case pending against him. Further, he would submit that P.W. 3 came and met the respondents on 24.10.1999. When the respondents were talking to P.W.3, he introducing himself as a friend of P.W.2, requested the respondents to withdraw the case against P.W.2. The respondents said that it cannot be done and therefore, P.W.3 quarrelled with the respondents and threatened them that he would take care of the respondents and then he went away. Further, he would submit that P.W.3 was the close friend of the appellant and took P.W.2 to the Vigilance Office on 25.10.1999 and gave a false complaint against the respondents as if they demanded bribe.
9. He would further submit that P.W.3 and P.W.4 were on duty in their respective offices on 25.10.1999 and never accompanied with P.W.2 and P.W. 13 to the respondent police station and Ex.P.5-seizure mahazer was fabricated in the Vigilance office itself. P.W.3 and P.W.4 signed in mahazer in the Vigilance Office itself. Even during the cross examination, P.W.2 has not stated that the respondents demanded money and received money. He clearly stated that he kept the money on the table. Immediately, the trap laying team came into the office and also took the money. All the documents were prepared only in the vigilance office, not in the police station. Therefore, there is a material contradiction between P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.3 has admitted http://www.judis.nic.in that the superior officer has given oral direction and not given 7 any written order directing P.W.3 to go as a witness for the vigilance police. Since P.W.3 and P.W.4 were on duty on 25.10.1999, they have not accompanied with the trap team. All the documents were prepared only in the vigilance office not in the police station, in which, they have signed it.
10. Main defence of the respondents is that P.W.3,4,13 and 14 were close friends prior to 25.10.1999. There is a contradiction of time that when P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the police station. P.W.2 has stated that they went to the police station around 07.15 p.m. P.W.3 has stated that they went to the police station at 06.15 p.m. Therefore, the occurrence is also suspicious as projected by the appellant. The initial burden of acceptance and recovery has not been proved in the manner known to law by the appellant. Though the respondents did not prove their defence by adducing direct evidence, they proved his defence from preponderance of probability or probable defence. P.W.2 has clearly stated that the previous day of 25.10.1999, P.W.3 went to the office of the respondents and also tried to convince them to withdraw the case against P.W.2. When the respondents refused the request of P.W.3, P.W.3 set up P.W.s2,4,13 and foisted a false case. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the defence taken by the respondents and found that the appellant has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in 1979 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 528 [Man Singh vs. Delhi Administration], 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1322 [MCD vs. State of Delhi and another], (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 41 [State through Inspector of Police, A.P., vs. K.Narasimhachary], (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 520 [Union of India through Inspector, CBI vs. Purnandu Biswas] and (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150 [V.Sejappa vs. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga].
12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
13. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence i.e., on 25.10.1999, the first respondent was working as the Special Sub Inspector of Police and the second respondent was working as a Head Constable in Thathiangarpettai Police Station, Trichy District. Prior to the date of occurrence, the father and uncle of the de facto complainant [P.W.2] were taken to custody by both the respondents. On 25.10.1999, P.W.2 met the first respondent at about 04.00 p.m., in the respondent Police Station. The first respondent asked P.W.2 as to why he did not pay mamool when he permitted http://www.judis.nic.in him to sell arrack. The father and uncle of P.W.2 were charged 9 under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and P.W.2 was directed to convince his father and uncle to admit the offence and pay the fine in Court and P.W.2 was asked to come and meet the respondents. On 25.10.1999, when P.W.2 met the first respondent in the Police Station, the 1st respondent demanded a bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- for not foisting a poisonous arrack case on them and for Deepavali mamool also. The second respondent persuaded the 1st respondent to reduce the amount. Subsequently, the 1st respondent reduced the bribe amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. The 2nd respondent separately demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe from P.W.2 for recommending and reducing the bribe amount. The 1st respondent directed P.W.2 to bring the bribe amount before the evening of 25.10.1999 and give it to him and told that if he is not present, to give the bribe amount to the 2 nd respondent. Since the de facto complainant was unwilling to pay any bribe to the respondents, he went to the Office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirappalli on 25.10.1999 and gave a written complaint against the respondents seeking for taking action against them.
14. Based on the complaint, a case was registered by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirappalli in Crime No.22 of 1999. After registration of the First Information Report, a trap was planned. On the same day, at 06.15 p.m., as instructed by the appellant, the de facto complainant along with PW.3-shadow witness went inside the police station and met the respondents. Since the respondents asked them to wait outside, http://www.judis.nic.in both of them came out and waited outside. Again, they went inside 10 voluntarily and at that time, there was electricity failure. The respondents demanded money and P.W.2 handed over the money to the 1st respondent. At that time, since the second respondent also attempted to receive money, the 1st respondent told P.W.2 to give the money to the 2nd respondent. The second respondent also received the money for himself and also for the 1st respondent. Therefore, after coming out of the room, P.W.2 gave pre- arranged signal. Immediately, P.W.13-Trap Laying Officer entered into the office of the respondents, introduced himself and asked the second respondent to dip his hands in Sodium Carbonate Solution prepared by trap laying team at the spot itself, which turned pink in colour. Then, P.W.13 recovered tainted money. The serial number of currency notes were compared and found to be matched with the entrustment mahazar. The tainted money was recovered through recovery mahazar in the presence of the independent witness and signatures were obtained from the witness and from the respondents, subsequently, entrusted to the Investigation Officer. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid against the respondents in Special Case No.10 of 2001, under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli. After completion of trial and hearing the arguments, the Special Judge found the respondents not guilty and acquitted the respondents. Against the judgment of the acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, the State has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 11
15. The case of the defence is that P.W.3 was a close friend of P.W.2. Therefore, P.W.3 only approached the respondents and asked the respondents to close the case pending against P.W.2. When the respondents refused the request of P.W.3, P.W.3 set up P.W.s2,4,13, foisted a false case and also P.W.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution and acceptance and recovery were not proved.
16. On a reading of the evidence of P.W.2, he has stated that initially he was doing arrack business and he stopped that business and was doing agriculture work. The respondents asked him to do arrack business and give a mamool. P.W.2 told them that he was not doing arrack business and only doing agriculture work and further, he did not want to do arrack business. Then the respondents threatened that if he did not do the business and pay mamool, they would foist a false case against his fathar and uncle and further demanded a bribe amount of Rs.6,000/-. On his request, they reduced the bribe amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.4,000/-. After P.W.2 came out of his office, the second respondent came and told that he only recommended for reducing bribe amount and therefore, he demanded Rs. 1,000/- for himself. Since P.W.2 did not want to pay the bribe amount, he approached P.W.13-trap laying officer and gave a complaint. P.W.13 asked him to bring the money. He again came to the office of P.W.13 at 02.00 p.m., on 25.10.1999. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were summoned to the vigilance office. After introducing P.Ws.3 and 4 to him, P.W.13 prepared entrustment mahazer http://www.judis.nic.in and asked P.W.2 and P.W.3 to go to the respondent police station 12 and strictly instructed P.W.2, that when they demand money, then only he has to hand over the money to the respondents and if they accept the money, he has to show the pre arranged signal and P.W.3 was instructed to follow P.W.2 and observe the happening during the meeting of P.W.2 with the respondents in the police Station. Accordingly, P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the police station and they were asked to wait outside. Thereafter, P.W.2 voluntarily went inside and kept the money on the table.
17.During the cross examination, P.W.2 has admitted that they demanded money and hence, he gave a complaint. P.W.2 has not supported the demand and acceptance of money. But, whereas, on a reading of the evidence of P.W.3, he has clearly stated that P.W.2 and P.W.3 went to the respondents police station at about 07.00 p.m., and met the respondents. The respondents asked them to wait for some time. After half an hour, P.W.2 and P.W.3 went inside and the first respondent asked P.W.2 whether he brought money. Then, P.W.2 told that he brought money and gave it to the first respondent. But, the second respondent had extended his hand to receive money, then, the first respondent told him to give the money to the second respondent. Immediately, the second respondent after receiving the money, counted with both the hands and kept in his shirt pocket. Thereafter, P.W.2 came outside of the police station and showed the pre arranged signal. P.W.13, after receiving the pre arranged signal, entered into the police station. Though at the time of handing over the money there was no http://www.judis.nic.in power, at the time of entry of the trap team into the police station, 13 power was restored. P.W.13 introduced himself and asked the second respondent to dip his hands in Sodium Carbonate Solution prepared by the trap team on the spot, which turned pink in colour. Then, P.W.13 recovered tainted money. The serial numbers of currency notes were compared and found to be matched with the entrustment mahazar. The tainted money was recovered through recovery mahazar. P.W.4 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.3.
18. From the evidence of P.W.2 and the complaint Ex.P.2, the initial demand is proved and from the evidence of P.W.3, subsequent demand and acceptance are proved and from the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 13, recovery of tainted money is also proved. Even though P.W.2 made a complaint and subsequently not supported the case of the prosecution and stated that voluntarily kept the money on the table, in his evidence, he has clearly admitted the signature in the complaint and made a complaint before P.W.
13. The evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that only after making demand, P.W. 2 handed over money to A2 at the instruction of A1.
19. Though the defence taken by the respondents is that P.W.3 was the friend of P.W.2, in order to safeguard P.W.2, P.W.3 made a request to the respondents not to take any action against P.W.2 and the respondents refused the request, then at the instigation of P.W.3, P.W.2 foisted a false complaint against the respondents, the evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that P.Ws.3 http://www.judis.nic.in and 4 are the independent witnesses and mere non supporting the 14 case of the prosecution by P.W.2 is not a ground to acquit the accused.
20. The defence has stated that P.W.2 and P.W.3 came to the police station and asked to wait outside and then, they voluntarily came and kept the money on the table. It is not believable that P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the police station and kept the money on the table of the respondents, unless the respondents have demanded money. Moreover, if there was no case pending against P.W.2, then, the respondents should have immediately sent them. But, P.Ws.2 and 3 were asked to wait for some time and were waiting for half an hour without any reason. This shows that the contentions of the respondents are not acceptable and creates serious doubts upon the defence.
21. From the evidence of P.Ws.3,4 and 12, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence taken by the respondents is not acceptable. The defence taken by the respondents is only an afterthought. The occurrence took place on 25.10.1999. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 were examined on 20.01.2005, 10.03.2005 and 15.09.2005 respectively. After a period of five years of the occurrence, the witnesses were examined. Therefore, the contradictions regarding time and other aspects, may not be fatal. The respondents demanded money from the defacto complainant on 25.10.1999 and accepted the money in the presence of P.W.3 and subsequently, P.W.13 recovered http://www.judis.nic.in the money in the presence of P.W.3 and P.W.4. Therefore, the 15 main ingredients of demand, acceptance and recovery are proved. Therefore, the defence taken by the respondents is only an afterthought. Since there was a case against the uncle and father of P.W.2 and he was also doing arrack selling business in earlier occasion, the respondents are police officers in the local police station, it is possibility of convincing him during trial. Therefore, he might not have supported the case of the prosecution. Since his signature found in his complaint, he could not deny the complaint.
22.The judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not applicable to the present case on hand. In this case, demand, acceptance and recovery are proved. It is a settled proposition in law under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that once the demand, acceptance and recovery are proved, it is the presumption that the money recovered from the respondents is tainted money and it is for them to explain, as to how the tainted money came into their possession. The respondents did not rebut the presumption from preponderance of probability or probable defence under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution has proved its initial burden. The respondents have made a serious attempt to defend their case, the defence taken by the respondents are not acceptable and the same is rejected as afterthought.
23.In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the latest decision of the Hon'ble http://www.judis.nic.in Apex Court in the case of The State of Gujarat Vs Navinbhai 16 Chandrakant Joshi Etc., The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
“8.It is well-settled that to establish the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, particularly those relating to the trap cases, the prosecution has to establish the existence of demand as well as acceptance by the public servant. In B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.,(2014) 13 SCC 55, it was held as under:-
“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. (2010) 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC
779.”
11. So far as the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act for the offence under Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it is settled law that the presumption raised under Section 20 of the Act is a rebuttable presumption, and that the burden placed on the appellant for rebutting the presumption is one of preponderance of probabilities. In C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I. Cochin, High Court of Kerala (2009) 3 SCC 779, this Court held as http://www.judis.nic.in under:-17
“21.It is well settled that the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 is not an inviolable one. The accuse charged with the offence could rebut it either through the cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence…….
22.It is equally well settled that the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is made under Section 20 of the Act is not akin to that of burden placed on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt…” Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe.” In this case also, from the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and P.W.12, prosecution has established the demand, acceptance and recovery through the above said witnesses. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.12. The case cited above is squarely applicable to the case facts of the present case on hand.
24. Considering the above circumstances, this Court finds that the respondents committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. http://www.judis.nic.in 18
25. On reading of the judgment passed by the Special Judge, the learned Special Judge gave importance to the immaterial contradictions and also unimportant defence side witness. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are independent witnesses and P.W.12 is official witness. They may not have any animosity against the respondents as stated by the respondents. The evidence of DW.1 is not sufficient to rebut the presumption in the absence of any material proof.
26. A reading of the entire materials placed on record, shows that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, through oral and documentary evidence. Even though there are contradictions among the prosecution witnesses, they are not vital contradictions and the same will not vitiate the case of the prosecution and go to the root of the prosecution case. Therefore, the contradictions are not material contradictions to vitiate the case of the prosecution. When P.W.2 admitted the complaint [Ex.P.3], independent witness-P.W.3 has spoken about the demand and acceptance, P.W.4 has spoken about the recovery, scientific report to strengthen the case. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that there are valid reasons to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court.
27. In the result, the present criminal appeal is allowed and the respondents are directed to appear before this Court for question of sentence http://www.judis.nic.in on 04.01.2019.
19
28. Post the matter on 04.01.2019 for question of sentence.
18.12.2018 As directed by this Court on 18.12.2018, A-1 and A-2 are present before this court today. When they were asked about the sentence to be imposed upon them A-1 has stated that he has not committed any offence and since he belongs to scheduled caste, a false case has been foisted against him and prayed to show mercy on him and A-2 stated that his wife is in medical treatment and he is the only bread winner of his family and no one is there look after his wife and prayed to show sympathy.
2.Considered the submissions made by the respondents/accused. Considering the serious nature of the charges levelled against the respondents, this Court is not inclined to show any leniency.
3.As this Court has already found the respondents guilty and convicted the respondents, the following sentence is imposed: -
The respondents are, sentenced to under go three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each as fine, in de fault, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for having committed the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous http://www.judis.nic.in 20 imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.5,000/- each as fine, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, for having committed the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and both the sentences shall run concurrently.
7.The appellant is directed to secure the respondents / accused to undergo the punishment imposed on them. The Registry is directed to issue necessary warrants.
04.01.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No dsk Note: 1.Issue judgment copy on 04.01.2019.
2.The Registry shall receive the fine amount.
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Trichirappalli
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Tiruchirappalli
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer (2 copies) Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21 P.VELMURUGAN, J.
dsk/sm Judgment made in CRL.A.(MD)No.355 of 2010 04.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in