Madras High Court
James vs The State Rep By on 15 May, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 13.12.2024
Pronounced On : 15.05.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A(MD)No.306 of 2018
James .. Appellant
Vs.
The State rep by,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.12 of 2009) .. Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records in Spl.C.C.No.69 of 2014 dated
28.06.2018, on the file of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act
Cases, Sivagangai and set aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathyroy
Senior Counsel for
: Ms.T.Seeni Syed Amma
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant who is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2014, on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sivagangai, has filed this appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on him, by the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2018.
Sl. Offence under Punishment
No. Section
1 7 of the Prevention Undergo three years of Rigorous
of Corruption Act, Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in 1988 default of payment of fine to undergo further period of 6 months of Simple Imprisonment 2 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Undergo three years of Rigorous the Prevention of Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in Corruption Act, default of payment of fine to undergo further 1988 period of 6 months of Simple Imprisonment
2. P.W.2 is the Defacto-complainant/Kalimuthu Konar. P.W.2 has lot of agricultural properties in various survey numbers comprised in Patta No. 339, 340 of the revenue village Sowmiyanarayanapuram in his name and his wife also had properties in the Survey number comprised in Patta No. 891. His wife meenakshi died prior to the occurrence in the year 2009. After her demise, he has 2/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 been cultivating both the lands. On 24.12.2009 morning 8:30 am he went to the house of the appellant to submit the crop insurance form in the Kollangudi Co- operative society for both the lands in his name and in his wife's name, and to obtain his signature in the prescribed form and produced the “chitta” and “Adangal” said to have been obtained from the Village Administrative Officer. The appellant refused to sign the form in his wife name on the ground that the village administrative officer did not subscribe the lands situated in the name of his wife in the Adangal and Chitta. He noted the survey number of his property comprised in Patta No. 339,340 in the crop insurance form and demanded Rs. 200/- to return the same. P.W.2 told that he had not brought any money and hence the appellant asked to bring Rs. 200/- in the evening. P.W.2 was not willing to give bribe, and therefore, he approached the respondent Vigilance Police and made a complaint to P.W.16 (Trap laying officer). P.W.16 upon verification of the alleagation made in the complaint, registered the case in Crime No. 12 of 2009 under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Thereafter, he called two official witnesses, namely, Kannadasan and Sundaram from two different government departments. After their arrival, P.W16 demonstrated the significance of the phenolphthalein test with the bribe amount brought by P.W.2 and instructed P.W.2 to hand over the bribe amount smeared 3/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 with phenolphthalein powder to the appellant on his demand and directed Kannadasan to accompany him and watch the transaction taking place between P.W.2 and the appellant. With this, P.W.16 prepared entrustment mahazar and further directed P.W. 2 to give signal if the appellant received the bribe amount. P.W.2 and Kannadasan met the appellant in his house in the evening around 4'o clock and the appellant reiterated the demand and accepted the bribe amount of Rs. 200/- and placed the said amount on the table and handover Ex. P5 crop insurance form with particulars of his land. Therafter, P.W2 gave signal to P.W16 and P.W.16 entered into the house of the appellant and conducted the test in the hands of the appellant and the color changed and hence P.W.16 enquired about the receipt of the bribe amount and appellant initially denied the receipt of the amount and thereafter told that P.W.2 voluntarily gave the amount and he took out the said amount from the bureau and after recovery, P.W16 recovered the documents and prepared the recovery mahazar in the presence of the official witness namely Kannadasan and Sundaram. P.W.16 arrested the appellant and handed over all the materials to P.W.17 and P.W.17 continued the investigation. He examined all witnesses, collected all documents and obtained sanction and filed the final report before the learned Special Judge and the same was taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.69 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of cases 4/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 under Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai.
3. The learned Special Judge, after serving the copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., to the appellant, framed necessary charges. The appellant/accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, he stood trial. To prove the case of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.17, exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P.39 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.4.
4. The Learned Trial Judge questioned the respondent under section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating materials available against him. The appellant denied the same as false and on the side of appellant, no material documents were produced and no oral evidence was let in. He filed detailed explanation. The learned trial Judge, after considering all the materials and documents, convicted the appellant by the impugned judgment dated 28.06.2018. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant preferred the present Criminal Appeal on the grounds stated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution case is that the defacto-complainant wanted to get recommendation from the 5/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 appellant to register for the Crop insurance in the co-operative society under the Crop Insurance Scheme. He sought the recommendation for the land standing in the name of his deceased/wife. There was some dispute regarding change of patta between the Village Administrative Officer and the appellant and hence P.W.2 did not submit the application within the time prescribed in the scheme. Thereafter, he obtained the change of patta in his name and submitted the application to the appellant for the recommendation under the Crop Insurance Scheme. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the said recommendation, the date is mentioned as 23.12.2009 and according to the prosecution, the said application was returned and signed only on 24.12.2009 and hence there is a serious suspicion over the trap. The learned senior counsel also would submit that once the scheme got expired, the case of the prosecution that he submitted the application to the appellant and the same was entertained by the appellant is not acceptable. Apart from that, the prosecution case is that the appellant refused to give the recommendation for the land standing in his wife's name. As on 24.12.2009, patta was not changed in wife's name. In view of the above fact, the case of the prosecution that the demand of amount for the recommendation of application for the land of PW.2's wife without mutation of records is false and hence, a false case was registered and the same is to be 6/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 considered along with the past conduct of P.W.2 making complaints against many persons including the sitting M.L.A. More particularly, he made an allegation against the sitting M.L.A that the sitting M.L.A has committed theft of 20 goats belonging to him and the same was closed as mistake of fact. He also made numerous complaints against several persons. Therefore, his evidence has to be viewed with suspicion. Apart from that, one official witness died and the other official witness, namely, P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case fully. In view of the fact that P.W.3/independent witness was declared hostile the prosecution case that the demand and acceptance has been proved cannot be accepted. The same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge.
6. According to the Crop Insurance Scheme, the appellant is not the competent person to entertain any crop insurance. Apart from that, he refused to favour for the wife's land since patta was not transferred in the name of his wife. The appellant rightly refused to sign the form. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is false. The learned trial Judge failed to consider the document filed by the prosecution document which itself shows that the insurance coverage period was already over and the application was accepted as a special case as per the communication of the Revenue Divisional Officer after the trap. In this case, 7/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 it is seen from the records, on the date of the trap, the scheme has already lapsed and there was no order passed by the competent officer to accept his form. In such an event, the case of the prosecution that he demanded money for the land standing in his wife's name is not acceptable one. Apart from that, the learned senior counsel submitted that when the demand and acceptance is not proved in accordance with law the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. Further, the recovery of the amount from his custody is properly explained and same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. Mere recovery of amount is not an offence, when the demand and acceptance was not legally proved. The learned counsel, further submitted that P.W.2 has axe to grind with the appellant and he was falsely implicated in this case. In view of the above circumstances, the learned counsel seeks acquittal and he relied the following precedents:
1.Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614
2.Meena (SMT) vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2000) 5 SCC 21
3.Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2023 SCC Online 320
7.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that P.W.3 official witness is declared hostile only in part and not wholly. In the said 8/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 circumstances, the argument of the learned Senior counsel deserves to be rejected. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that when the PW.2's document, namely, Ex.P5 was in the custody of the appellant and the appellant also admitted that he received the form on the date of the occurrence and as the amount also was recovered from the house of the accused, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act comes into play. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The minor contradictions relating to some aspects is immaterial, when the examination of the witnesses has been done after number of years. Apart from that, it is true that the scheme expired on the date of trap but the entertainment of the application by the appellant itself is a strong circumstance to presume the demand and acceptance. If the scheme had expired, the appellant, in all fairness should have returned the application to P.W.2. There was some dispute relating to the mutation of records in the name of wife which is not material, when the prosecution clearly proved the demand and acceptance of the amount. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that P.W.2 has given cogent evidence about the demand and acceptance. Therefore in all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the demand and acceptance and the same was properly considered by the learned trial Judge and hence, he seeks to dismiss the 9/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 appeal.
8. This Court considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.
9. Now the question to be decided in this case is whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the Trial Court, is in accordance with law?
10. He is the owner of the properties comprising in various survey numbers in patta Nos.339 and 334. His wife's patta number is 891. According to the charge, the appellant refused to sign the form submitted by P.W.2 relating to his wife's property, which reads as follows:
“Gfhh;jhuh; fhspKj;J nfhy;yq;Fbapy; jd; ngahpy; cs;s eQ;ir epyj;jpYk; kw;Wk; jd; kidtp ngahpy; cs;s eQ;ir epyj;jpYk; tptrhak; nra;Js;sjhy;
mjw;fhd Njrpa Ntshz; gaph; fhg;gPl;Lj;jpl;lj;jpd;gb nfhy;yq;Fb $l;LwT nrhirl;bapy; gjpT nra;tjw;fhf 10(1) rpl;lh> Ntshz; gaph; fhg;gPl;L ghuk; kw;Wk; mlq;fy;
Mfpatw;wpy; ifnaOj;J thq;Ftjw;fhf nfhy;yq;Fb 10/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 gFjpf;fhd fhisahh;Nfhtpy; cjtp Ntshz;ik mYtyuhf cs;s vjphpahfpa ck;ik 24.12.2009-Mk; Njjp fhiy rkhh; 8.30 kzpastpy; ehl;lurd;Nfhl;ilapy;
cs;s ckJ tPl;by; te;J ghh;j;J gbtq;fspy;
ifnaOj;J Nfl;lNghJ vjphpahfpa ePH; Gfhh;jhuhpd; ngahpy; cs;s epyj;jpw;F kl;Lk; ifnaOj;J Nghl;Ls;sPh;. Gfhh;jhuhpd; kidtp ngahpy; cs;s epyj;jpw;F fl;lhak; &.200 ju Ntz;Lk; vd;W Nfl;Ls;sPh;.
10.1. The allegation of PW.2 as per Ex.P2 is as follows:
“vdJ ghuq;fis thq;fp ghh;j;J (ehd; nfhLj;j vy;yhtw;iwAk;) vd; kidtp ngahpy; cs;s epyj;jpw;fhd mlq;fspy; V.A.O. ehd; tptrhak; nra;Js;s tptuj;ij vOjhjpUe;jjpdhy; mjpy; ifnahg;gkpltpy;iy vd;W nrhy;yp vdJ ngaUf;fhd rhFgb tpguj;ij me;jg; ghuj;jpy; vOjp ifnaOj;Jg; Nghl;L tpl;L vd;dplk; &gha; 200/- (,UE}W &gha;) Nfl;lhh;. ehd; jaq;fp epd;Nwd;. vy;NyhplKk; thq;FtJ Nghy; jhd; Nfl;fpNwd; vd;whh;. ,g;g ehd; gzk; nfhz;L tutpy;iy vOjpAs;sijf; nfhLq;f nrhi]l;bapy; Ngha; gjpe;J tpl;L Ngha; gzk; vLj;J te;J jUtjhfr; nrhd;Ndd;. mij mth; Vw;Wf;nfhs;shky; gzk;
&.200/- nfhLj;jhy;jhd; jUNtd; vd;W fz;bg;ghfr; nrhy;yptpl;lhh;. tPl;bw;F Ngha; gzk; vLj;J tuZk; vd;W Nfl;Nld;. ,d;W ehd; yPtpy; jhd; tPl;bypUf;fpNwd;. rhaq;fhyj;jpw;Fs; gzj;ijf; nfhz;L te;J nfhLj;Jtpl;L ghuj;ij thq;fpl;L Ngha; nrhi]l;bapy; gjpT gz;Zq;fs; vd;W jpU.N[k;]; nrhd;dhh;fs;. mtUf;F yQ;rk; nfhLf;f vdf;F tpUg;gkpy;iy. vd;dplk; mth; yQ;rkhff; Nfl;l 11/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 gzk; &.200/- ,UE}W nfhz;L te;Js;Nsd;. cjtp Ntshz;ik mYtyh; jpU.N[k;]; mth;fs; kPJ eltbf;if vLf;FkhW Nfl;Lf; nfhs;fpNwd”;.
10.2. The evidence of PW.2 also is in similar line of the allegation made in the complaint which reads as follows:
“me;j ghuq;fis thq;fp ghh;j;J tpl;L vdJ kidtp ngahpy; cs;s 20 nrz;l; eQ;ir epyj;jpy; ehd; tptrhak; nra;j tptuj;ij tp.v.X. mlq;fspy; vOjhky; ,Ue;jjhy;
mjpy; ifnahg;gk; ,ltpy;iy. VdJ ngaUf;Fhpa rhFgb tptuj;ij gl;lh vz;.399> 340 Mfpatw;iw vOjp ifnaOj;J Nghl;L tpl;L vd;dplk; &.200/- yQ;rkhf Nfl;lhh;. ehd; jaq;fp epd;Nwd;. mjw;F vjphp ehd; vy;NyhhplKk; thq;FtJ Nghy; jhd; cd;dplKk; Nfl;fpNwd;> nfhL vd;W Nfl;lhh;. ehd; ghuj;ij jhUq;fs;> nrhirl;bapy; Ngha; gjpe;j gpwF gzk;
vLj;J te;J jUtjhfr; nrhd;Ndd;. Mjw;F vjphp xj;Jf;nfhs;stpy;iy. gzk; &.200/- nfhLj;jhy;jhd; jUNtd; vd;W fz;bg;ghf nrhy;yptpl;lhh;. NkYk; yPtpy; jhd; tPl;by; ,Ug;gjhfTk;> rhaq;fhyj;jpw;Fs; gzj;ijf; nfhz;L te;J nfhLj;Jtpl;L ghuj;ij thq;fp nfhz;L Ngha; nrhirl;bapy; gjpT nra;J nfhs;Sq;fs; vd;W vjphp nrhd;dhh;.
vdf;F vjphpf;F yQ;rk; nfhLj;J ghuj;ij thq;f
tpUg;gk; ,y;iy”.
12/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
10.3. The final report and sanction order also are in similar line.
“(i) Whereas it is reported that the complainant tr.Kalimuthu Konar a farmer, met Tr.P.James, Assistant Agricultural Officer at his residence on 24.12.2009 at about 8.30 hrs., produced the Natonal Crop Insurance Proposal Form and connected documents for getting the details of crops and remarks of the Assistant Agricultural Officer for registering in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society under the National Crop Insurance Scheme. At that time, he demanded Rs. 200/- for returning and furnishing the crop details in the proposal form of National Crop Insurance Scheme for registering in Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society.
ii) Whereas it is further reported that on the same day 24.12.2009 at about 16.40 hrs., when the complaint Tr.Kalimuthu Konar met Tr.P.James, Assistant Agricultural officer along with official witness Tr.Kannadasan at his residence at Door No.5/7, Lal Bahadur Sastri Street, Nattarasankottai, the Assistant Agricultural Officer reiterated his earlier demanded, received tainted money of Rs.200/-, kept the same in wooden bureau along with an invitation cover in his bedroom and returned the proposal form to Tr.Kalimuthu Konar.
iii). Whereas it is further reported that Tr.P.James being a public servant on 24.12.2009 at about 8.30 hrs., at his residence, demanded Rs.200/- from the complainant Tr.Kalimutu Konar to return with crop details in the national Crop Insurance Proposal Form for registering in Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society 13/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 as a motive or reward and as gratification other than legal remuneration and thereby he has committed an offence punishable U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.” 10.4.From the sanction accorded by PW.1 it is clear that there is no sanction to prosecute the appellant for the allegation framed in the charge that appellant demanded bribe of Rs.200/- to sign the Crop Insurance Form to the lands standing in the name of deceased wife of PW.2. The evidence of PW.2 and the allegation in the final report and the Investigating Officer's evidence are all relating to the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount for signing Crop Insurance Form relating to the lands standing in the name of PW.2 and there is no evidence relating to the lands standing in the name of the deceased wife of PW.2 comprised in Patta No.891. Therefore, the Learned Trial Judge overlooked the allegation made in the final report and the charges framed which are mutually contradictory. The Learned Trial judge also failed to see that the charges framed by court that appellant demanded bribe to sign the Crop Insurance Form in the name of PW.2's wife is without evidence. Therefore, this Court considered this extraordinary circumstance that charge is not supported by the evidence. It is settled principle that the court can frame the charge upon the perusal of the final report. But, Court has no jurisdiction to pass conviction without any evidence to 14/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 prove the allegation found in the charges framed by the court.
11. To prove the demand, prosecution examined Defacto-complainant PW. 2 and relied it as the only circumstance that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 200/- from PW.2 in the morning on the date of the trap i.e. on 24.12.2009. At the time of the trap in the evening of 24.12.2009, the appellant reiterated the demand in the presence of the “deceased official witness Kannadasan”. Due to the death of Kannadasan, the only available evidence to prove the demand is PW.2 and his evidence has to be tested in the same way as “interested witnesses” as held by the Hon'ble Constition Bench of Supreme Court in case of State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh reported in AIR 1958 SC 500 and reiterated by the Hon'ble Two Judges Bench of Supreme Court in various cases including Khilli Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1985(1) SCC 28 which reads as follows:
“3. . It is also true that in the case' of State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh [1959 SCR 195 : AIR 1958 SC 500 : 1958 Cri LJ 979] a five-Judge Bench has laid down that if any of the witnesses are accomplices, their evidence is admissible in law but the Judge should indicate in his judgment that he had the Rule of caution in mind — namely, the danger of convicting the accused on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice — and give reasons for considering it unnecessary to require corroboration; if, 15/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 however, the witnesses are not accomplices but are merely partisan or interested witnesses, who are concerned in the success of the trap, their evidence must be tested in the same way as any other interested evidence is tested, and in a proper case, the Court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.
11.1 As per the oral evidence let in by the prosecution and exhibited documents, the appellant has to give the Crop Insurance Form on the basis of the Adangal issued by the Revenue Department. PW.2 deposed that he obtained Adangal from Village Administrative Officer on 23.07.2009 and met the appellant in his house in the morning of 24.07.2009. The prosecution witness namely Village Administrative Officer PW.7 deposed that he had not issued Adangal to PW.2. PW.7 deposed that on 14.12.2009, PW.2 met the appellant in his office at 10.30 AM and requested to furnish Adangal. At that time, PW.7 was called to attend the collector's meeting at Tahsildar Office. Hence, he asked PW.
2 to come in the afternoon of 14.12.2009 but PW.2 prevented him from proceeding towards the collector's office to attend the meeting and scolded him and scuffle took place between them. Therefore, PW.7 made a complaint against him and thereafter PW.7 never gave the Adangal. In view of the above factual circumstances, the deposition of PW.2 that he obtained the adangal from the 16/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 village Administrative Officer is false. Therefore, PW.2's deposition that he met the appellant with the adangal furnished by the Village Administrative Officer is not supported by the evidence of PW.7. PW.5, the then Tahsildar deposed that he directed the Revenue Inspector namely Sathyanarayanan, higher officer of PW.7 to get the Chitta and Adangal from PW.7 and furnish to PW.2 and submit the report. As per the direction, the said Revenue Inspector furnished Adangal to PW.2 on 23.12.2009. In the said Adangal also, there was no reference about the lands of PW.2's wife since she died prior to 2009. When wife of PW.2 passed away, as per the Revenue procedure, P.W. 2 has to mutate the revenue records in the name of the legal heirs of his wife. But, no such records were produced by PW.2. Therefore, the appellant rightly refused to sign the Crop Insurance Form as stated in the complaint. It is also not legally permissable to sign the Crop Insurance Form in the name of the deceased person without any reference about the lands of the deceased wife of PW.2 in the “Adangal”. No documentary evidence was adduced before the Court below to show the “Adangal” in the name of the deceased wife of P.W.2 covering the Property in Patta No.891.
Further, the past conduct of P.W.2 making complaints against all officials including the sitting M.L.A and the VAO has to be considered to test the veracity of testimony of P.W.2. He made an allegation against the sitting M.L.A 17/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 that the sitting M.L.A has committed theft of 20 goats belonging to him and the same was closed as mistake of fact. Apart from that, the Village Administrative Officer, specifically deposed that he made a complaint against P.W.2 for his unruly behaviour with him by denigrating his caste name to make him sign the form under Ex.P.5. P.W.2/Thiru.Kalimuthu Konar owes allegiance to various political parties and rubbing shoulders with a Central Minister. Therefore, P.W.2 is a trouble monger and the evidence adduced before the Court shows that he has the habit of making complaints against the officials to make them dance to his tunes. Under the said special circumstances, the evidence of PW.2 requires corroboration and the same has been fortified by the Hon'ble Three Judges bench of Supreme Court in Para 10 in the case of Meena v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2000) 5 SCC 21.
“10.We have bestowed our careful thought on the submissions made on either side, in the light of the evidence on record. We are of the view that neither the quality of the materials produced nor their proper evaluation could, in this case, be held sufficient to convince or satisfy the judicial conscience of any adjudicating authority to record a verdict of guilt, on such slender evidence.
The corroboration essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of the alleged occurrence and acceptance of bribe is very much wanting in this case.” 18/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
12. But, no corroborative evidence is available to prove the demand, said to have been made in the morning on the date of the trap I.e., on 24.12.2009. The specific plea of the appellant is that he never met PW.2 in the morning as deposed by him and the said sum and substance of the said pleading of the appellant finds place in the course of the explanation U/s.313 Cr.P.C, which is as follows:
m.rh.2-aplk; ehd; ghuk; Nfl;ftpy;iy. ehd; fhiy
Neuj;jpy; mq;F ,y;iy.
13. The said plea was supported by the material on record. PW.8 deposed that the appellant was deputed to do some other work in another village and the relevant document namely attendance register was also marked as Ex.P.25 & Ex.P.26 and the said documents reveal that he was deputed to work in the village called Veeramuthupatty.
“fle;j 24.12.2009-k; Njjp vjphp fsg;gzpf;Fr;
nrd;wjhfj;jhd; vq;fs; Mtzq;fspy; cs;sJ. Fsg;gzpf;Fr;
nry;gth;fs; fhiy 10.00 kzp Kjy; khiy 5.00 kzp tiu
mYtyj;jpw;F nry;tJ Nghy; my;yhky; mjpfhiyapNyNa
gzpf;Fr; nrd;W tpLthh;fs;. md;iwa jpdk; vjphp
19/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
tPuKj;Jg;l;bf;F fsg;gzpf;Fr; nrd;Ws;sjhf Mtzq;fspy;
cs;sJ.”
14. If the evidence of PW.7 and the contents of Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.26 is taken into account the case of the appellant that he was not present in the morning is probable. Therefore, the meeting of PW.2 with the appellant in the appellant's house in the morning on the date of the trap i.e., 24.12.2009 is doubtful. Hence, the case of the prosecution that appellant demanded bribe amount from PW.2 in the morning on 24.12.2009 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt since there is no corroborative evidence for the same.
15. Further, reiteration of demand of Rs.200/- by the appellant to give the Crop Insurance Form in the name of PW.2's wife at the time of trap on 24.12.2009 also could not be established since the official witness Kannadasan passed away. The evidence of PW.2 does not inspire confidence who had approached the appellant to give the Crop Insurance Form in the name of dead person without including the Survey number of dead person's land in the Adangal and other revenue records. Hence, the case of the prosecution that there was a reiteration of demand at the time of the trap as claimed by PW.2 is without corroborative evidence and the same cannot be accepted. The specific case of 20/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 the appellant during the trap proceedings and under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that he never demanded any bribe and obtained bribe amount from P.W.2. He specifically pleaded during u/s.313 CrPC proceedings that he never demanded any amount in the afternoon on the date of trap and the same is as follows:
“kjpak; m.rh.2 te;j NghJ ehd; gzk; Nfl;ftpy;iy.”
16. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the appellant demanded bribe for PW.2's wife's Crop Insurance whereas reading the following portion of the evidence of PW.2 would show that the appellant never demanded bribe to sign the Crop Insurance Form in the name of deceased wife of PW.2:
“vdJ ngaUf;Fhpa rhFgb tptuj;ij gl;lh vz;.399> 340 Mfpatw;iw vOjp ifnaOj;J Nghl;L tpl;L vd;dplk; &.200/- yQ;rkhf Nfl;lhh;. ehd; jaq;fp epd;Nwd;. mjw;F vjphp ehd; vy;NyhplKk; thq;FtJ Nghy; jhd; cd;dplKk; Nfl;fpNwd;> nfhL vd;W Nfl;lhh;. ehd; ghuj;ij jhUq;fs;> nrhirl;bapy; Ngha; gjpe;j gpwF gzk; vLj;J te;J jUtjhfr; nrhd;Ndd;.
Mjw;F vjphp xj;Jf;nfhs;stpy;iy. gzk; &.200/- nfhLj;jhy;jhd; jUNtd; vd;W fz;bg;ghf nrhy;yptpl;lhh;. NkYk; yPtpy; jhd; tPl;by; ,Ug;gjhfTk;> rhaq;fhyj;jpw;Fs; gzj;ijf; nfhz;L te;J nfhLj;Jtpl;L ghuj;ij thq;fp nfhz;L Ngha; nrhirl;bapy; gjpT nra;J nfhs;Sq;fs; vd;W vjphp nrhd;dhh;.
“ehd; vjphpaplk; fhiyapy; nfhLj;jpUe;j gaph; fhg;gPl;L 21/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 jpl;lj;jpw;fhd G+h;j;jp nra;ag;gl;l ghuj;ij Nfl;Nld;. Mjw;F vjphp ehd; fhiyapy; nrhd;dgb &.200/- nfhz;L te;jpUf;fpwhah vd;W Nfl;lhh;. muR rhl;rp Re;juj;jhy; vd;
rl;lrigapy; itf;fg;gl;l gTlh; jltg;gl;l gzk; &.200/-ia vjphpaplk; nfhLj;Njd;. Vjphp gzj;ij thq;fpaTld; gaph; fhg;gPl;L ghuk;> 10(1) rpl;lh> mlq;fiy vd;dplk; nfhLj;jhh;.” Therefore, the alleged demand to sign the Crop insurance form in the name of deceased wife is without any substance.
17. The said Crop insurance form in the name of deceased wife also was not recovered in the house of the appellant and the official witness PW.3 was declared hostile and he specifically stated as follows:
“N[k;]; tPl;bd; cs;Ns ele;j tptuk; vdf;F njhpahJ.” “ifg;gw;Wjy;; kf[hpy; vd;d tptuq;fs; vOjg;gl;bUf;fpwJ vd;gJ vdf;F njhpahJ. vd;ndd;d Mtzq;fs;> vj;jid Mtzq;fs; vjphp tPl;by; ,Ue;J ifg;gw;wpdhh;fs; vd;gJ vdf;F njhpahJ.” From the above evidence of the trap witness, the recovery of the document is not proved. In the recovery mahazar also, there is no reference about the recovery of the Crop Insurance form in the name of the deceased wife of PW.2 and the same is clear from the following contents of the Recovery Mahazar:22/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 “vjphpahy; ,d;W vOjg;gl;L 23.12.2009 vd Kd; Njjpapl;L thjpf;F nfhLf;fg;gl;l gaph; fhg;gPl;L Kd;nkhopT gbtKk;; mj;Jld;> gl;lh vz;.339> 340> 891-f;fhd 12.11.09 Njjpapl;l 10(1) efy;fs; %d;W kw;Wk; fpuhk eph;thf mytyh; nfhy;yq;Fbapy; 23.12.2009-y; nfhLf;fg;gl;l mlq;fy; efy; ,uz;L. gl;lh vz;.
339> 340-f;fhd mlq;fy; efypy; fUg;G ikapdhy; nkhj;jk;
6-,dq;fshf vOjpapUe;jJ Fwpj;J vjphpaplk; Nfl;ljpy; jhd; rhpghh;g;jw;fhf vOjpajhf njhptpj;jhh;.
18. So, there was no recovery of Ex.P.21 at the time of the preparation of the recovery mahazar and PW.16 traplaying officer also not disclosed about the recovery of Ex.P.21 at the time of preparation of the recovery mahazar. Therefore, the prosecution case that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe amount to sign the Crop Insurance Form containing the survey number of PW.2's deceased wife is not proved either through oral evidence or documentary evidence.
19. Since the official witness who accompanied PW.2 died, to prove the acceptance of the illegal gratification”, the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2. The specific case of the appellant both during the recovery 23/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 proceedings and under Section 313 CrPC proceedings is that he never received the bribe amount. He was not aware of the planting of the bribe amount on the table. Later, he found the amount and he placed the said amount in his bureau believing that amount was his personal amount and the said explanation is as follows:
mth; ehd; ghuk; vOjpf; nfhz;bUe;jNghJ vd; Nlgpypy; &gha; itj;j tpguk; vdf;F njhpahJ. ehd; ntspNa Nghtjw;fhf tz;b rhtpia vLf;Fk;NghJ jhd; gzj;ij ghh;jN ; jd;. mJ vd; gzk; vd;W epidj;J vg;NghJk; gzk;
itg;gJ Nghy; buhaupy; itj;Njd;. ehd; yQ;r gzk; Nfl;fTk; ,y;iy> gzk; thq;fTk; ,y;iy NghyP]; nrhy;yp ehd; buhaypUe;J vd; gzk; vd;W epidj;J vLj;Jf;nfhLj;Njd;. m.rh.2 vd;dplk; Vw;nfdNt jfuhW nra;Js;shh;. ngha; tof;F ngha; rhl;rpak;.
20. This Court is unable to accept the sole testimony of PW.2 to hold that the appellant had received the illegal gratification, without any corroborative evidence more particularly in the backdrop of P.W.2 requesting to sign the Crop Insurance Form for the lands of the deceased wife of PW.2 comprised in Patta No.891 without any reference of the lands in the Adangal allegedly issued by the revenue department.
24/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
21.The claim of the appellant that a false case was registered is to be considered along with the past conduct of P.W.2 making complaints against many persons including the sitting M.L.A and the said plea of suspicious conduct of PW.2 seems to be acceptable. In this case, Crop Insurance Form in the name of the wife after her death is not legally permissable and hence the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded Rs.200/- to sign the Crop Insurance Form covering the properties of deceased wife of PW.2 is not acceptable.
22.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor stated that two other circumstances namely the recovery of the xerox copy of the unfilled Crop Insurance Form from the custody of the appellant, handling of the Crop Insurance Form of PW.2 on the basis of the Chitta, Adangal produced by PW.2 by filling the xerox copy of the Crop Insurance form and handing it over to PW2 in the evening which are all an incriminating circumstances which were not explained by the appellant. This Court is unable to appreciate the said contention.
22.1. As per the evidence of the PW.8 and other department witnesses, 25/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 due to the deficiency of the Crop Insurance Form, it is permissable to keep the xerox copy of the Crop Insurance Form. The evidence of PW.8 and PW.14 are as follows:
PW.8 PW.14
“,j;jpl;lj;jpy; gjpT nra;a gaph; fhg;gpl;bw;fhf Kd;nkhopT
tptrhapfSf;fhd gaph; fhg;gPl;L gbtk; Ntshz;ik Jiw
Kd;nkhopT gbtq;fs; Fwpg;gpl;l mYtyfq;fspy; toq;fpdhh;fs;.
msNt vq;fSf;F toq;fg;gl;bUe;jJ. mJ tptrhapfspd;
VdNt Njitf;Nfw;g n[uhf;]; vLj;J vz;zpf;iff;F NghJkhd
gad;gLj;jTk;> Nkw;gb gbtj;jpid G msT ,y;yhky; ,Ue;jjhy;
+h;j;jp nra;J> tptrhapfSf;F cjtp Ntshz;ik mYtyh;fs;
toq;fplTk; cjtp Ntshz;ik efy;fs; vLj;J
mYtyh;fSf;F gad;gLj;jpdhh;fs;.
mwpTWj;jg;gl;bUe;jJ.
Therefore, keeping the unfilled xerox copy of Crop Insurance form and using one such form to give to PW.2 cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance.
22.3 The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the appellant met PW.2 in his house and he filled the Crop Insurance Form after the period of expiry to submit the application is another incriminating circumstance to presume the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. 26/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 22.4 According to PW.14 Assistant Director of the appellant's department, the period to submit the application was extended up to 30.12.2009. PW.15 officer from the Central Co-operative Bank deposed that the last date to submit the application was 31.12.2009 in the case of loanee. There was no evidence to prove that PW.2 was a loanee of the society. Therefore, this Court declines to accept the contention of the Public Prosecutor in this aspect for the reason that before expiry of the date, the appellant addressed the grievance of PW.2 and filled the Crop Insurance Form and recommended him. Therefore, no evidence is available against the appellant that he demanded bribe for discharge of his lawful duty.
23. Mere recovery of currency notes of two hundred rupees notes without proof of acceptance cannot be held against the appellant to draw presumption under Section 20 of the Act and the same has been fortified by the Hon'ble Three Judges bench in Paragraph No.11 in the case of Meena (SMT) vs State of Maharastra reported in (2000) 5 SCC 21 “11. The learned Judge in the High Court seems to have mechanically affixed his approval to the findings recorded by the trial Judge by profusely extracting such findings. Mere recovery of the currency note of Rs 20 denomination, and that too lying on the 27/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 pad on the table, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the acceptance of the bribe, in the peculiar circumstances of this case which lend also credence to the case of the appellant that it fell on the table in the process of the appellant pushing it away with her hands when attempted to be thrust into her hands by PW 1. The results of phenolphthalein test, viewed in the context that the appellant could have also come into contact with the currency note when she pushed it away with her hands cannot by itself be considered to be of any relevance to prove that the appellant really accepted the bribe amount. With such perfunctory nature of materials and the prevaricating type of evidence of PW 1 and PW 3, who seem to have a strong prejudice against the appellant, it would be not only unsafe but dangerous to rest conviction upon their testimony. PW 1, if really was keen on getting the copy of the record urgently, could have made an urgent application to have them delivered within 3 days instead of making an ordinary application and going on such an errand, which makes it even reasonable to assume that the trio of PW 1, PW 3 and Jagdish Bokade were attempting to weave a web around the appellant to somehow get her into trouble and victimise her.” and in Paragraph No.8 in the case of B. Jayaraj vs State of A.P reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55:
“8. ...Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7.” 28/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018 and in Para 18 in the case of Rajesh Gupta v. State reported in (2022) 20 SCC 793 “18. For an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to prove the guilt. Mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand.”
24. The other circumstance of recovery of the amount from the custody of the appellant is concerned, the evidence of PW.2 that the appellant received the bribe amount has not been corroborated by any other evidence. In the said circumstance, the explanation of the appellant during section 313 CrPC proceedings and his immediate reply that he never received the amount is to be considered in favour of the appellant. Mere recovery of the amount is not a circumstance to convict the appellant U/s.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe amount. Therefore, this court finds no material to convict the appellant U/s.7, 13(23) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
29/32 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm ) Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
25.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed in the following terms:
25.1.The judgment passed by the learned Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases, Sivagangai in Spl.C.C.No.69 of 2014 dated 28.06.2018 is hereby set aside.
25.2.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges in Spl.C.C.No.69 of 2014, on the file of the learned Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases, Sivagangai.
25.3.Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith.
25.4.Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand terminated.
15.05.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sbn
30/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
To
1. The Special Court for Trial of Cases
under Prevention of Corruption Act,
Sivagangai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Record Section (Criminal)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
31/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
Crl.A.(MD).No.306 of 2018
15.05.2025
32/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/06/2025 05:07:47 pm )