Madras High Court
A.Balasubramanian vs State Through on 28 January, 2019
Author: P. Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.01.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.(MD) Nos.91 & 205 of 2012
in Crl.A.(MD) No.91 of 2012
A.Balasubramanian ... Appellant
vs.
State through
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Wing,
Trichirapalli.
Crime No.7 of 2006 ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court for trial
of cases under Section Prevention of Corruption Act, Trichy in
S.C.No.118 of 2011 dated 18.04.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
in Crl.A.(MD) No.205 of 2012
State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing,
Tiruchirappalli
Crime No.7 of 2006 ... Appellant
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
vs.
S.Karuppaiah ... Respondent
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the acquittal of A2 dated
18.04.2012 in Special Case No.118 of 2011 on the file of the Special
Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act,
Tiruchirappalli and convict the respondent / accused (A2) as
charged.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
COMMON JUDGMENT
Crl.A.(MD) No.91 of 2012 has been filed to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court for trial of cases under Section Prevention of Corruption Act, Trichy in S.C.No.118 of 2011 dated 18.04.2012.
2.Crl.A.(MD) No.205 of 2012 has been filed to set aside the acquittal of A2 dated 18.04.2012 in Special Case No.118 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli and convict the respondent / accused (A2) as charged.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3.The case of the prosecution is that the complainant M.Kandasamy, a resident of Thelungupatti Village, Kulithalai Taluk was taken to Thogaimalai Police Station by A1 on 22.07.2006 at about 03.00 p.m., and was detained there for some time and enquired from 06.00 p.m., to 10.00 p.m., and instructed him to come to the police station on the next day. Accordingly, on 23.07.2006 at about 12.00 noon, the defacto complainant went to the said police station. He was interrogated by the first accused from 12.00 noon to 02.00 p.m., and was instructed to come to the police station once again at 06.00 p.m., on the same day.
4.When the defacto complainant came to the police station at 06.00 p.m., on the same day, he was interrogated and sent to his home at 09.00 p.m., by the first accused and at the time the appellant / A1 demanded the defacto complainant to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe for not registering any case against the defacto complainant. He replied that he has no money. Then he was threatened by the first accused by saying that he should pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe before the next night, otherwise the hands and legs of the defacto complainant would be broken and his entire family would be placed inside.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4
5.On 24.07.2006, the defacto complainant met the first accused in the said police station along with witness Palaniyappan at about 08.15 p.m. He was enquired and was asked by him as to why the other four persons did not come with him and for which he told that he brought a sum of Rs.3,000/- as demanded by him. Then the defacto complainant was told by him that he should come tomorrow with the other four persons and each one should bring a sum of Rs.3,000/-.
6.On 25.07.2006, when the defacto complainant met the first accused in the said police station at about 07.40 p.m., along with the said Palaniyappan, he confirmed with the defacto complainant as to whether he came with the demanded money and asked him to wait for some time. While they were waiting at about 08.45 p.m., A2 came to the police station and went into the room of the appellant / A1 and after that at about 08.50 p.m., the defacto complainant went into the room of the appellant / A1 with the said official witness and met him in his room. At that time, A2 was sitting opposite to the first accused. The appellant / A1 reiterated his earlier demand and directed the defacto complainant to hand over the said amount to A2 and as directed the defacto complainant handed over the said amount to the second accused, he accepted http://www.judis.nic.in 5 the same on behalf of A1 and hence, the appellant / A1 had committed an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellant / A2 had committed an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, 11 witness were examined, 26 documents were marked and 3 material objects were exhibited. After completing the prosecution evidence, incriminating circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before the accused and the same has been denied as false. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence were produced.
8.After completing the trial, hearing the arguments and considering the matter, the learned Special Judge convicted A1 and acquitted A2. Against that judgment, A1 has filed an appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.91 of 2012 and the prosecution has filed an appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.205 of 2012 against the acquittal of A2.
9.The learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.91 of 2012 would submit that the demand has not been proved in this http://www.judis.nic.in 6 case and the appellant / A1 interrogated the defacto complainant / P.W2 and the witnesses P.Ws.,4, 5 and 6 and also some other persons in connection with a theft of motor pump set and said to have demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.3,000/- from the defacto complainant. There is no dispute that the first accused had interrogated the P.W2 and other in connection with a theft case as stated by the prosecution.
10.Further, the learned counsel would submit that after the completion of trap, the officials have not obtained any statement from the accused and the same is violation of Rule 47 of the Vigilance Manual, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 7 have clearly stated that they had engaged A2 and he received the amount as professional fee and they have also admitted that A2 was present in the police station on 22.07.2006.
11.Further, P.W2 himself has stated that on 24.07.2006 the appellant / A1 had not demanded and accepted the money and even on 25.07.2006, he has not demanded and accepted the money. Only he asked where are the other persons and to bring them. Therefore, the learned Special Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence and also given the finding that A1 demanded and accepted http://www.judis.nic.in 7 the money in the presence of P.W3 and P.W10, the Trap Laying Officer had not recovered the money from A1. Only by his instructions, A2 received the money. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that A2 received the money for A1. A2 received the money only as professional fee engaged by P.W2, which warrants interference of this Court.
12.Further, the learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.205 of 2012 would submit that on 25.07.2006, when P.W2 met the appellant / A1 along with P.W3 at Thogaimalai Police Station, the first accused is said to have reiterated his earlier demand and instructed the P.W2 to hand over the bribe to the second accused, who is said to have received and accepted the same. The accused have disputed the demand and acceptance of the bribe money and the M.O1 series and stated that the said money was received by the second accused as professional fee from P.W2 at his office and hence, the appellant has never demanded any money and never accepted any money. P.W1, the Sanction Authority without applying his mind has accorded sanction.
13.The learned counsel for the respondent in Crl.A.(MD) No. 205 of 2012 would submit that the respondent engaged one http://www.judis.nic.in 8 Thangavel as Counsel to appear before the police station for him. On 25.07.2006, when the Counsel came to his office, he received the money only as professional fee. There is nothing wrong to appear before the police station on behalf of his client and there is nothing wrong that the Advocate getting the legal fee from his client.
14.In this case, there is no knowledge about the bribe and further the amount has not been received by A1. A2 received the amount from PW.2 only as professional fee for having engaged as Counsel for PW.2. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found that there is no knowledge about the bribe amount and the amount received only as professional fee, not a bribe and there is no demand. When there is no demand, the mere recovery of tainted money does not constitute the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When two views are possible, the view, which is in favour of the accused, can be extended to the accused. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused. Mere recovery of tainted money does not constitute the offence. In this case, the prosecution has not proved the demand and acceptance.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9
15.The evidence of P.Ws., 2 and 3 clearly show that on 24.07.2006, the appellants have never demanded and never accepted the money. Even P.W2 has voluntarily given the money to A1, A1 refused to accept the money and told to bring other suspected persons on 25.07.2006. Then on 25.07.2006, P.W2 came and gave the amount to A2 stating that professional fee.
16.Further, the learned counsel for the respondent in Crl.A. (MD) No.205 of 2012 would submit that A2 has no knowledge about A1 demanded money. When P.W2 has given the money to A2, A2 received the same only as professional fee. There is no evidence to show that A2 has knowledge about the bribe money and also A1 demanded the money and instructed A2 to receive the money. There is no evidence to prove the same. Therefore, when two views are possible, the view, which is favorable to the accused can be extended to him. Hence, the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.
17.In this case, since the trial Court acquitted A2, there is no perversity in the finding given by the trial Court. It is for the prosecution to prove that there is a perversity in the finding given by the trial Court. But, in this case, there is no perversity in the http://www.judis.nic.in 10 finding of the trial Court and there is no need for interference with the judgment of the trial Court and the trial Court has rightly acquitted A2 and the prosecution has failed to prove that the charge levelled against A2 under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which does not warrant interference of this Court.
18.The learned counsel for the State would submit that in order to avoid in filing of the false case against P.W2, A1 demanded money as bribe and at his instructions A2 received the same. On 22.07.2006, the defacto complainant went to the police station. The documents Ex.P7 to Ex.P17 would clearly show that P.W2 and other witnesses had appeared before the police station on 22.07.2006 and at the time he demanded money and he was interrogated by A1 and was instructed to come to the police station once again on the same day.
19.Then the defacto complainant went to the police station on 24.07.2006 and met A1, who in turn asked as to why the other four persons did not come with him and for which he replied that he brought a sum of Rs.3,000/- as demanded by him and A1 told that already there was a raid in the police station and due to the same, he was not able to receive the money directly. Therefore, he asked http://www.judis.nic.in 11 him to wait outside for some time. Then, A1 called P.W2 and P.W3 and asked them to give the money to A2 and A2 was also waiting for all these things and he noticed that A1 demanded money. Though there are materials against A1 and A2, the learned Special Judge accepted the case of the prosecution against A1 alone and disbelieved the case against A2. From the evidence of P.W2 and P.W3 coupled with P.W9 and P.W10, the prosecution has proved its case against both the accused. But unfortunately, the learned Special Judge believed the case only against A1 and acquitted A2, which warrants interference of this Court.
20.Heard the arguments advanced by both sides. Perused the records carefully.
21.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant was taken to Thogaimalai Police Station by A1 on 22.07.2006 and was instructed to come to the police station on the next day. Accordingly, on 23.07.2006, the defacto complainant went to the said police station. He was interrogated by the appellant / A1 and was instructed to come to the police station again. Then he was threatened by the first accused by saying that he should bring all the persons in the electric motor theft case with a sum of Rs.3,000/- each as bribe within next day. http://www.judis.nic.in 12
22.Since he was not willing to give any bribe money, he approached the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Office, Where he met P.W10, to file the complaint and thereafter, P.W10, received the complaint and registered a case and summoned the independent witnesses and introduced P.W2 to them and conducted the pre-trap demonstration proceedings and coated the phynopthalin powder on the money, which was meant for giving to A1 and prepared the entrustment mahazar also and noted down the serial numbers of the tainted money. Subsequently, after destroying all the phinopthalin test solution and washed their hands, P.W2 and P.W3 were asked to proceed to the police station, in which A1 was working on 24.07.2006.
23.At the police station, when the defacto complainant met A1, the appellant / A1 enquired the defacto complainant and asked him as to why the other four suspected persons in the electric motor theft case did not come with him. He said that he was not aware about the other persons. Then he was instructed to come on next day i.e., on 25.07.2006 along with others with a sum of Rs.3,000/- each.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13
24.On 25.07.2006, when the defacto complainant met A1 in the said police station at about 07.40 p.m., along with the independent witness, he confirmed with the defacto complainant as to whether he came with the money and asked him to wait for some time. While they were waiting at about 08.45 p.m., A2 came to the police station and went into the room of the appellant / A1 and after that at about 08.50 p.m., the defacto complainant went into the room of the appellant / A1 with the said official witness and met him in his room. At that time, A2 was sitting opposite to the first accused. The appellant / A1 reiterated his earlier demand and directed the defacto complainant to hand over the said amount to A2 and as directed, the defacto complainant handed over the said amount to the second accused, he accepted the same on behalf of the first accused.
25.Thereafter, he came out from the office and showed the pre-arranged signals to the Trap Laying Officer. Thereafter, P.W2 identified A1 and A2 and P.W1 introduced himself to A1 and A2. Trap Laying Officer conducted the phenolpthalien test, which proved positive and thereafter, the tainted money was recovered. Then recovery magazar was prepared and the matter was placed before the Investigating Officer.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14
26.On reading of the evidence of P.W2, the defacto complainant narrated the events. On a perusal of records, Ex.P7 to Ex.P17 clearly show that there was a complaint received against the theft of electric motor and therefore, P.W2 was suspected with many other persons by the respondent police.
27.PW.2 had further deposed that since he was not willing to give the money as bribe, he filed a complaint on 24.07.2006. Subsequently, after registering the case, the respondent police conducted the pre trap demonstration proceedings and thereafter, the defacto complainant was told by A1 that he should come to the police station next day i.e., on 25.07.2006 with the other four suspected persons and each one should bring a sum of Rs.3,000/- and the same was reported before the Trap Laying Officer and also he instructed P.W2 if he was interested would come on the next day i.e., on 25.07.2006 and on that day also he came and approached the Trap Laying Officer.
28.After completing the procedural formalities on 25.07.2006 at 12.45 p.m., P.W2 and P.W3 were asked to go to the police station, where A1 is working and instruction was given, if A1 demanded money, then only he should hand over the money to him http://www.judis.nic.in 15 in the presence of P.W3. Thereafter, P.W2 had entered into the police station and again A1 asked about the other suspected persons and P.W2 told that he was not aware of them and not concerned about the other persons and then A1 told P.W2 to wait for some time at the outside of the police station because recently there was a raid in the police station and due to the same he did not want to receive the bribe money directly. Therefore, P.W2 and P.W3 were waiting outside the police station. Thereafter, after reaching A2 to the police station, he went and sat opposite to A1, after 5 minutes A1 called P.W2 and P.W3 and asked P.W2 to hand over the money to A2 by showing his hand and stated that he would get from him later. Accordingly, P.W2 also handed over the tainted money to A2, A2 also received the same and kept with him.
29.From a reading of the entire evidence of P.W2 and P.W3, P.W2 had never engaged A2 as his counsel not only in this case but also in any other case. Therefore, there is no relationship between A2 and P.W2 as counsel and client. Though A1 has stated that he has not demanded any money and not accepted the money, no recovery has been made from him, at the same time, the bribe money was transferred only in the police station in the presence of A1 and from the evidence of P.W2 and P.W3, the prosecution has http://www.judis.nic.in 16 clearly proved its case that A1 demanded money from P.W2 and he wanted to receive the bribe money from the other suspected persons also, who were all alleged to have been suspected in the electric motor theft case. Since the other persons have not come on 24.07.2006, A1 did not receive the money and told him that if the other persons do not come with a sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe, he would register the case against P.W2. So, in the name of enquiry, A1 called the persons and demanded money for not registering the case against P.W2.
30.From the evidence of P.W3, it is seen that he is neither the friend of P.W2 nor working in the office of the Trap Laying Team and he is the independent witness. He has clearly stated that when he went along with P.W2 on 24.07.2006, A1 demanded money and asked as to whether P.W2 has brought the money and told him to come on the next day i.e., on 25.07.2006 and bring the other suspected persons also. On 25.07.2006, A1 demanded money and at the time he has ascertained from P.W2 as to whether he has brought the bribe money. When P.W2 gave the money to A1, he told that since there was a raid in the police station in the recent past, he did not want to receive the money directly. He asked P.W2 and P.W3 to wait for some time. After A2 reaching the office of A1 http://www.judis.nic.in 17 was sitting opposite to A1. 5 minutes later he called P.W2 inside the office of A1 and at the time again they reiterated the demand and ascertained as to whether P.W2 has brought the money. As per the direction of A1, P.W2 and P.W3 were waiting outside the police station and subsequently A2 received the money from P.W2 and A2 was not disputed the same and P.W2 and P.W3 have clearly stated that A1 demanded money for not registering a false case against P.W2. P.W2 has not engaged A2 as his counsel either for the said electric motor theft case or in any other case. Though he has received the money on behalf of A1, A1 demanded bribe money in order to avoid any complication, he received the tainted money through A2. The money received by A2 was not for him it is only for A1. From the evidence of P.W2 and P.W3, it is clear that A1 told P.W2 by showing his hand towards A2, who was sitting just opposite to A1 that give to A2 and he would receive from him.
31.Under these circumstances, on reading of the entire evidence of P.W2, after showing the pre arranged signals, the Trap Laying team entered into the police station and they also conducted the phynopthalin test and the result is also positive. Therefore, it is clear that A1 received the money from P.W2 through A2. http://www.judis.nic.in 18
32.The learned counsel for A2 would submit that A2 was neither arrested nor signature was obtained from him in the mahazar, which shows that A2 received the money only as professional fee. Since he was not arrested on the said day, no signature was obtained from A2 in the magazars, which shows that A2 has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
33.On reading of the suggestion put before P.W2, P.W2 handed over the money to A2, for having engaged A2 and A2 has taken the stand that A2 received the money only as professional fee and not as bribe money.
34.The evidence of P.W3 clearly shows that A1 demanded money on 24.07.2006 and on 25.07.2006 A2 received the money from P.W2 only for A1 as bribe money and not professional fee and P.W2 has not engaged A2 as his counsel at any point of time not only in the said theft case but also any other cases. In the absence of any materials to show that he was engaged by P.W2 as his counsel, the defence taken by A2 is not acceptable.
35.On a conjoint reading of the materials placed before this Court, the entire evidence and the witnesses, P.Ws.,5, 6 and 7, the http://www.judis.nic.in 19 defence that on 22.07.2006, P.W2 asked A2 to stand as his counsel for defending his case. Since P.Ws., 5, 6 and 7 were also the suspected persons, they are within the jurisdiction of A1 and that there is no documentary evidence to show that P.W2 engaged A2 as his counsel not only in the said theft case and also any other cases, pending before the police station, in which A1 was working. Under these circumstances, there is a perversity in the appreciation of evidence of the prosecution against A2 and wrongly acquitted him.
36.On reading of the entire materials placed before this Court and considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, absolutely there is no quarrel with the legal proposition in the referred to judgments. But in this case on hand, on reading of the entire materials especially Ex.P7 to Ex.P17 have been recovered from the police station and the evidence of P.Ws., 2, 3, 4 and 10 clearly show that P.W2 was taken to the police station for enquiry in a theft case. At the time, A1 demanded money and also accepted the same through A2 and therefore, A2 has committed the offence and he was not engaged by P.W2 as his counsel not only in the said theft case and also any other cases. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused is not believable. The defence taken by the A-2 is only an afterthought and in order to escape from the clutch of the http://www.judis.nic.in 20 law, he has made a false defence without any substance. Mere taking bald defence without any material is not acceptable.
37.Under these circumstances, this Court finds that A1 and A2 have committed the offence and on a reading of the entire materials especially the witnesses P.Ws., 2, 3, 4 and 10, the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt against A1 and A2.
38.The learned counsel for the accused would submit that no statement was recorded from the accused soon after the completion of trap, the same is violated the Rule 47 of the Vigilance Manual. The Vigilance Manual is only a guideline and the same is directory and not mandatory. Mere non recording of the statement as per the rules in the manual is not vitiating the case of the prosecution.
39.The prosecution evidence clearly shows that A1 demanded money initially and thereafter, received the same as bribe through A2. Therefore, the violation of Rule 47 or any other Rule of the Vigilance Manual will not vitiate the case. Regarding the non application of mind by Sanction Authority is concerned, even though P.W1 has stated in his evidence that he had perused the statement of the accused, it is not the sole ground to acquit the accused when http://www.judis.nic.in 21 the Sanction Authority has gone through the entire materials and accorded sanction. On reading of the sanction order and the evidence of P.W1 shows that he has applied his mind before according the sanction. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the sanction accorded by P.W1.
40.The demand is proved through P.W2 and P.W3 and further the acceptance is also proved though P.W2 and P.W3 in the manner known to law by the prosecution. The tainted money was also recovered from A2 and he stated that he received the money from P.W2 as professional fee. The same was not proved with substitutive materials that he was engaged by P.W2 when P.W2 denied about his engagement. Therefore, Section 20 of the Act, apply to this case. No doubt the said legal presumption is rebuttable, it is for the accused to rebut the presumption that the recovered money is not a bribe money. On reading of the entire evidence, the Court below has not appreciated the entire materials in toto.
41.On reading of the entire materials placed before this Court, the prosecution has proved its case with cogent evidence that for not filing the false case against P.W2. A1 demanded money at the http://www.judis.nic.in 22 time of occurrence, since there was a frequent raid in the police station in order to escape from the clutches of the law, he received the money through A-2.
42.Therefore, on 25.07.2006, he confirmed with the defacto complainant as to whether he had brought the money and asked him to wait for some time. While they were waiting, A2 came to the police station and went into the room of the A1 and sitting opposite to him after that the de facto complainant went into the room of A1 with the said official witness and met him in his room. At that time, A2 was sitting opposite to the first accused. A1 reiterated his earlier demand and directed the de facto complainant to hand over the said amount to A2 and as directed, the de facto complainant handed over the said amount to the second accused, he accepted the same on behalf of the first accused and kept the money in his pocket. There is no evidence to show that A2 was engaged by P.W2 as his counsel not only in the said theft case and also for any other case, which was pending before the said police station. The explanation offered by the accused was neither reasonable not satisfactory. Fact is that A2 had received the money in the police station as instructed by A1, who was just sitting opposite to him and in the absence of a reasonable explanation as http://www.judis.nic.in 23 to how the tainted money came to his possession then would be a presumption that he accepted the bribe and Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is attracted.
43.Hence, the defence taken by A2 is not acceptable and the submission made by the learned counsel for A1 is also not acceptable. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused is not proved in the manner known to law and the same is rejected and A-2 has committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.
44.Under these circumstances, this Court finds that both A1 and A2 have committed the offence and there is no perversity in the finding against A1 and there is a perversity in the finding against A2.
45.In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Judge of the Special Court for trial of cases under Section Prevention of Corruption Act, Trichy in S.C.No.118 of 2011 dated 18.04.2012 against A1 is hereby confirmed and the Crl.A.(MD) No. 91 of 2012 is here by dismissed and the order dated 18.04.2012 passed in Special Case No.118 of 2011 on the file of the Special http://www.judis.nic.in 24 Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tiruchirappalli against A2 is hereby set aside and Crl.A.(MD) No. 205 of 2012 filed by the State against A2 is hereby allowed.
46.The respondent in Crl.A.(MD) No.205 of 2012 is directed to appear before this Court on 28.01.2019 for question of sentence.
18.01.2019 mm This Court on 18.01.2019 directed the respondent in Crl A(MD)No.205 of 2012 to appear before this Court today, for asking question of sentence, since this Court found A-2/ respondent in Crl A(MD)No.205 of 2012 guilty by reversing the judgment of the trial Court against A-2.
2.The respondent did not appear before this Court today. The learned Counsel for A-2 stated that A-2's mother is hospitalised and he has to take care of her and he also filed an affidavit and prayed for dispensation of appearance of A-2 before this Court. He further placed reliance in the judgment in Dagdu and Others Vs State of Maharastra, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 68 stating that the accused need http://www.judis.nic.in 25 not appear before the Court if circumstances warrant.
3.This Court had already given sufficient time and opportunity for the accused, it is upto him to utilise the same.
4.In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel, the affidavit filed and the judgment cited supra, the appearance of the A-2 is dispensed with. In the absence of A-2, this Court sentences A-2/ respondent in CrlA(MD)No.205 of 2012 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for having committed the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998.
5.The appellant Police is directed to secure the A-2 forthwith in order to undergo the sentence imposed.
28.01.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dsk
Note: The Registry shall receive the fine amount http://www.judis.nic.in 26 To
1.The Special Judge The Special Court for trial of cases under PC Act. Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper (2 copies) VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 27 P. VELMURUGAN, J.
dsk Crl.A.(MD) Nos.91 & 205 of 2012 28.01.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in