Madrasjudgment High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.272 of 2017official witnesses. Then, the test solution was destroyed. The notes, smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, were handed over to P.W.2, Selvam, who was instructed to hand over the money only if demanded by the accused at the R.D.O. office, Tiruchengode, and to signal the trap party afterwards.6. Thereafter, at 3:30 P.M., the entire party proceeded to Trichengode and reached there by 4:00 P.M. The trap-laying party dropped P.W.2 and the official witness, and were watching from a distance. At about 4:20 P.M., P.W.2 and the official witness came out and signalled. Thereafter, P.W.14 confirmed from P.W.2 and the official witness that the accused Venkatachalam had accepted a bribe of Rs 500/-. Immediately afterwards, he went inside the office and apprehended the accused. The accused became anxious and pleaded that he did it unknowingly, requesting forgiveness once. The complainant was directed to wait at the Town Panchayat Office. The accused was taken to a nearby thatched structure, made to sit in a chair, and after preparing the mahazar, the test was conducted. Both of the accused’s 7/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017hands turned pink, and the solution also turned pink. The solution was then sealed, labelled, and ten Rs.50/- notes, handed over by the accused, were recovered. The serial numbers were verified, and after giving another shirt to the accused, his shirt was also immersed in the solution, which turned pink. That was again sealed and labelled, and the shirt was recovered under the recovery mahazar. Upon inquiry, the accused admitted that besides the Rs.500/-, he had another Rs.900/-, which was his personal money. Subsequently, he was arrested at about 6:15 P.M, and the mahazar proceedings were completed by 6:20 P.M, with the particulars sent to the Court. Around 7:45 P.M, the following day, his house was searched, he was produced for remand, and afterwards, the file was handed over to P.W.15 for investigation.7. P.W.15, Periyasamy, thereafter took up the case for investigation, completed the same, and filed a Final Report proposing the accused as guilty of an offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 8/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 201713(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The case was registered as Spl.C.C.No.56 of 2002. On 19.02.2003, two charges were framed against the appellant/accused. Firstly, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,500/- as a bribe on 30.04.2002, when P.W.2 approached him for copies of the documents, and then reduced the amount to Rs.1,000/-. Again, on 03.05.2002, when P.W.2, Selvam, was not present, he sent for P.W.2 to meet him through the witness Arokyasamy. When P.W.2 met him on the same day at about 2.00 P.M, he again reduced the bribe to Rs.500/- and instructed him to hand it over on any day during the week, as he would be present in the R.D.O's office due to Jamabandi. Subsequently, on 09.05.2002, between 4.10 P.M and 4.20 P.M, he obtained illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from P.W.2 in the presence of the witness Kumaresan, thereby committing an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Secondly, for these reasons, abusing his position by demanding and obtaining a bribe of Rs.500/-, he also committed an offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.9/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 20178. The accused denied the charges and stood trial. In order to bring home the charges, one Venkatachalam, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, who went through the files submitted by the prosecution and issued a sanction order (Ex.P-1) dated 08.10.2002, and who spoke about the said process, was examined as P.W.1. The decoy witness/de facto complainant was examined as P.W.2, who talked about the first demand of Rs.1,500/-, which was reduced to Rs.1,000/- and the second demand on 03.05.2002 and reduced the demand on 04.07.2002 and the fact that he approached the Police on 09.05.2002 and about setting up of the trap and the appellant/accused, taking him to a lane behind the B.D.O's office and demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.500/-, being the tainted money and thereafter, signalling to the Trap Laying Officer and party that caught the accused red-handed. 9. P.Kumaresan, who was the official witness, who accompanied the decoy witness, was examined as P.W.3, who explained about the trap laying 10/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017process and the fact about he accompanying P.W.2 to the R.D.O's office, Tiruchengode and the demand and acceptance of the tainted money. One Muthuswamy, father of P.W.2, was examined as P.W.4. Pavayi, the mother of P.W.2, was examined as P.W.5 and she spoke about the Village Assistant coming to her office and requesting P.W.2 to meet the appellant/accused. Ponnusamy, the TANGEDCO official, was examined as P.W.6 and he spoke about P.W.2 and his father making the application and that they were directed to produce the copies of the relevant documents in respect of the same. Marimuthu, the Commercial Assistant of TANGEDCO, was examined as P.W.7, who spoke about the inspection carried out in the field and the request for copies. 10. Arokyasamy, the Village Assistant, who was supposed to have gone to the house of P.W.2 and demanded the payment of money, was examined as P.W.8, and he turned hostile, and he was cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. One Kandasamy, the Tahsildar of the concerned 11/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017taluk, who described that the meeting was taking place on a particular day and they all learned that the appellant/accused was arrested, received bribe, was examined as P.W.9. One Periyasamy, who was working as Assistant in the Tiruchengode taluk office, who witnessed the incident of arrest and who took Arokyasamy to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, for examination on 11.05.2002, was examined as P.W.10. Ramasamy, the Court Clerk concerned, who sent the M.Os for Forensic Examination, was examined as P.W.11. Sankari, who was the Personal Assistant at the R.D.O office, Tiruchengode, who spoke about the particular hall that is being used by the Village Administrative Officer at the time of Jammabandi, etc., was examined as P.W.12. Dr.Kamalakshi Krishnamoorthy, the Forensic Expert, who examined the samples and gave a report in Ex.P-16, was examined as P.W.13. The Trap Laying Officer, Nachiappan, was examined as P.W.14. The Investigating Officer, Periyasamy, was examined as P.W.15.11. On behalf of the prosecution, the sanction order was marked as 12/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017Ex.P-1. The oral statement that was reduced to writing was marked as Ex.P-2. The mahazar prepared by the Trap Laying Officer for handing over ten 50 rupee notes was marked as Ex.P-3. The recovery mahazar, which detailed the recovery of the tainted notes and the accused's shirt, was marked as Ex.P-4. The rough sketch was marked as Ex.P-5. The search memo, filed by the Trap Laying Officer to conduct a search of the accused's house, was marked as Ex.P-6. The file relating to the application made by P.W.2's father to the E.B authorities was marked as Ex.P-7. The signature in the mahazar was marked as Ex.P-8. The copies, including the ownership certificate, chitta, adangal, and F.M.B sketch, were marked as Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12. The recovery mahazar through which these copies were received was marked as Ex.P-13. The request letters for sending the sample for analysis were marked as Ex.P-14 and Ex.P-15. The Forensic Report was marked as Ex.P-16. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P-17. The advance information sent to the Court was marked as Ex.P-18. The Remand Report was marked as Ex.P-19. The Form-95 was marked as 13/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017Ex.P-20. 12. The tainted ten 50 rupee notes were marked as Ex.M.O.1 series. The cover containing Phenolphthalein powder was marked as Ex.M.O.2. The cover containing Sodium Carbonate powder was marked as Ex.M.O.3. The solution in which the right hand was dipped was marked as Ex.M.O.4. The solution in which the left hand was dipped was marked as Ex.M.O.5. The solution in which the shirt was dipped was marked as Ex.M.O.6. The shirt itself was marked as Ex.M.O.7. 13. Upon being questioned about the incriminating evidence on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied it. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the accused. During the trial, Ex.D-1, a letter written by the Trap Laying Officer to the Revenue Divisional Officer, was marked. 14/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 201714. The Trial Court then proceeded to hear the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the appellant. The Court found that the prosecution had proved that the lands were in the name of P.W.4, the father of P.W.2. P.W.2 testified clearly about the demand, which P.W.3 also confirmed, supporting P.W.2's evidence. Hence, the Court held the demand was established. The relevant purpose was demonstrated by producing the relevant file, and the acceptance of the amount was proved through expert evidence, the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer, and the recovery mahazar. The Court rejected the arguments that the sanction order was invalid. It also dismissed the contention regarding the FIR, explaining that when P.W.2 gave an oral statement that was reduced to writing in Tamil and marked as Ex.P-2, it sufficed. The accused failed to show that the case was false or that the trap was stage-managed, and the Court held that the offences were proved beyond any reasonable doubt, sentencing the appellant as aforesaid.15/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 201715. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.Gopalakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.16. Firstly, pointing out the cross-examination of P.W.2, it was argued that P.W.2 and his family had made constructions by encroaching on the pathway/street. When the encroachments on the said pathway were ordered to be removed by the Village Administrative Officer, the appellant had to take action. Therefore, there is a strong motive for P.W.2 to seek revenge against the appellant. This is further supported by the fact that P.W.15, Periyasamy, the Investigating Officer, is a relative of P.W.2. P.W.2 & P.W.15 admitted this during cross-examination. Hence, if the entire complaint and the trap-laying process are motivated, it provides grounds to doubt the case of the prosecution. In this regard, the learned Counsel relies on the judgment of this Court, dated 24.10.2024 in V. Radhakrishnan Vs. State (Crl.A. No. 282 of 2019), specifically paragraph No.8.2, which states that if 16/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017the Trap Laying Officer approached his target like a predator, compromising all neutrality, fairness, and personal integrity, and acted ruthlessly, it could undermine the fairness of justice, and the Court should not accept the trap as valid.17. The learned Counsel would then point out the circumstances under which the appellant/accused was caught red-handed at the R.D.O's office during the time of Jamabandi. It is highly unbelievable that a Village Administrative Officer, who wants to demand and accept bribe, would have asked P.W.2 to come to the Revenue Divisional Office, especially when all the officers and Village Administrative Officers from all the villages were present at the Jamabandi. The learned Counsel would then highlight contradictions in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4, the official witnesses, and point out that the request sent to his office was never marked, nor is the timing when the official witness was deputed clear. Therefore, he would argue that in this case, it should be considered that the official witness was 17/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017an interested witness, and his deposition should not be regarded as trustworthy. In this regard, the learned Counsel would rely upon the judgment of this Court, dated 26.03.2024, in P.Narasimhan Vs. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Vellore (Crl.A.No.805 of 2018), specifically, on paragraph No.13 of the said judgment. 18. The learned Counsel then argues that it was the obligation of P.W.14, the Trap Laying Officer, to record the accused's statement immediately after arrest, as required by paragraph No.47 of the V & AC Manual. This would have clearly revealed the accused's immediate response. He relies on the judgment of this Court in V. Subramani Vs. State (Crl.A. No.616 of 2018), especially paragraph No.10 of that judgment. The Counsel also points out the location from which the alleged copies of documents were recovered. Additionally, he highlights that although the prosecution claims the appellant/accused directed the de facto complainant to deliver the money at the R.D.O.'s office, there is no explanation for why 18/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017the documents were not recovered in the presence of the accused. Therefore, he contends that the prosecution's case is filled with contradictions. Finally, the learned Counsel emphasises from Ex.D-1 that the Investigating Officer explicitly alleges the Village Assistant's involvement in the entire episode. Ex.D-1 clearly states this. Although the prosecution claims the Village Assistant fled the scene, the fact that he was not apprehended when he was again present to open the office of the Village Administrative Officer only exposes the falsity of the entire case. Essentially, the prosecution has manipulated the evidence and filed the Final Report. For all these reasons, he prays for the acquittal of the appellant/accused.19. Per contra, Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, would submit that firstly, the purpose for which P.W.2 approached the accused is proven by examining the relevant officials from the Electricity Board and by marking the entire file. P.W.2 was in need of the certified copies of the patta, chitta, adangal, F.M.B. 19/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017sketch, etc., which are proved beyond doubt. P.W.2 testified clearly without any confusion regarding the dates on which he approached the accused and the initial demand made by him, which was Rs.1,500/-, then reduced to Rs.1,000/-, and subsequently to Rs.500/-. The fact that the Jamabandi was being conducted is also proved by the prosecution through the examination of the Tahsildar and the Personal Assistant working in the Revenue Divisional Office, Tiruchengode. Additionally, the fact that the trap was laid in the Revenue Divisional Office is corroborated. 20. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that P.W.4, the official witness, who had no connection with P.W.2 or the accused, clearly deposed about the demand made by the accused, the subsequent handing over of the tainted money, and its recovery from the accused. The trap was carefully set and all procedural formalities were properly followed. The sample was sent for analysis, and the expert report is marked as Ex.P-16. Therefore, the demand, acceptance of the bribe amount, purpose, and 20/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017related aspects are proved beyond doubt. Merely because the Village Administrative Officer took action against encroachment, it cannot be regarded as a motive in this case, as the same incident occurred due to the directions given, and all encroachments in the road were removed by the Village Administrative Officer. Even the allegations concerning P.W.15, a relative, cannot be taken seriously, since the complainant was given only to P.W.14, who examined him, verified the complaint, and was involved in setting up the trap. Accordingly, the argument regarding motive has to be rejected. The minor contradictions pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant are insignificant and do not undermine the prosecution's case.21. I have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and reviewed the material records of the case. On behalf of the accused, certain circumstances and contradictions in the prosecution's case are highlighted. Therefore, the primary task of this Court is to examine these contradictions and to determine whether they create a doubt regarding the prosecution's 21/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017case. 22. First and foremost, the recovery of copies of the relevant documents that P.W.2 sought from the accused/appellant, such as the ownership certificate, chitta, adangal, F.M.B. sketch, etc. According to P.W.2 and the prosecution, after making a demand and reducing the amount, the accused had already begun preparing these documents, even in the presence of P.W.2, and was holding them at the R.D.O's office. However, without handing over or signing the photocopy of the F.M.B. sketch, he kept it with himself and asked the accused to come to the R.D.O's office in the following week with the money. After paying the money, he reportedly directed P.W.2 to collect the documents.23. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, is that the trap-laying proceedings were completed on 09.05.2002. On 10.05.2002, the entire file was handed over to him by the Trap Laying 22/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017Officer. On 10.05.2002, he examined P.W.2 and P.W.4, and 11.05.2002, is the date on which he is said to have recovered these documents. It is the prosecution's case that, on 10.05.2002, he requested the Revenue Tahsildar, Tiruchengode, to produce the Village Assistant, Arokyasamy. In this connection, even in the Remand Report, marked as Ex.P-19, the said Arokyasamy is shown as the second accused in the margin with an endorsement 'absconding accused'. It is also stated in the Remand Report that the Village Assistant, Arokyasamy, is absconding with the documents intended for the complainant.24. On the same day, i.e., 11.05.2002, the Trap Laying Officer informed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode, that a case had been registered against the Village Administrative Officer, and he had been arrested. The F.I.R. was forwarded with a request to keep him under suspension. In the said communication, it is also mentioned in paragraph No.4 that 'Tr.Arokyasamy, Village Assistant of Patlur Village, was abetted by 23/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017the V.A.O. Tr.V. Venkatachalam in the demand for a bribe, and he is absconding with the documents required by the complainant, which were prepared and given to him by the V.A.O. Tr.V. Venkatachalam'. However, as seen from the evidence of P.W.9, Kandasamy, after absconding at the time of the apprehension of the appellant/accused on 09.05.2002, the Village Assistant, Arokyasamy, reappeared on 11.05.2002. Immediately thereafter, they inquired about the documents, produced him before the Investigating Officer, and he denied fleeing with the documents. He then took them to the office of the Village Administrative Officer. Since then, the documents could not be found. Subsequently, he brought them to the hall where all the Village Administrative Officers keep the entire village accounts during Jamabandi. The hall was opened, and in the bundle kept by the appellant/accused, the documents were found and recovered. 25. P.W.10, Periyasamy, who is also a witness to the recovery mahazar, Ex.P-13, stated in his chief-examination that the said Arokyasamy 24/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017was produced before the police on 11.05.2002. Although his chief-examination notes that the recovery was made only on 16.05.2002, this was clarified during cross-examination, confirming that the recovery occurred only on 11.05.2002. Therefore, it can be seen that the letter in Ex.D-1 was written on the morning of 11.05.2002, but Arokyasamy surfaced and was produced later that day. Upon examination, nothing incriminating was found, and he was not arrested, yet the recovery was duly completed. Apart from a minor contradiction in the evidence of mahazar witness Periyasamy (P.W.10), which was clarified by the accused side during cross-examination, I find no significant inconsistency regarding the recovery of the documents.26. The second argument is with reference to the First Information Report. It is true that the First Information Report, in the relevant column, instead of extracting the information as such, P.W.14 translates the same into English and writes a summary version of the information. Though it is ideal that the exact information should be contained in column 12, merely because 25/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017the officer who is registering the case summarises the information and writes in his own language, the same cannot be invalidated. The same has to be considered in the context of the instant case, where P.W.2 had approached P.W.14 without any written complaint, and especially, when his oral statement is reduced into writing by P.W.14 himself and the same is marked as Ex.P-2. Therefore, the same would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. 27. The third argument related to the contradiction in the prosecution's case. It is true that during cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that he received a written order from the Chief Educational Officer on the previous day, i.e., 08.05.2002, around 7:00 P.M., and claims that on the next day, at 11:15 A.M, he went to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption office. Even though it can be seen that P.W.2 was belatedly cross examined, his original version in the chief examination is that on the morning of 09.05.2002, around 9:00 A.M, the Chief Educational Officer orally instructed him to visit the Vigilance and 26/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017Anti-Corruption office, and he went there between 9:30 A.M and 10:00 A.M. However, P.W.2 would submit that he came to the Office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption much later. By cross-examination, the defence elicited the time taken for him to come over to Salem by bus and then to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. Even for the sake of the prosecution taking that P.W.2 arrived at their office at 9.00 A.M., things have moved in an hectic pace, that is, the preliminary verification of the complaint was made, First Information Report is registered, written communication was issued to two offices and the witness were summoned, Phenolphthalein test demonstrated, P.W.2 had come ready with the bribe money, handing over mahazar was prepared and the Phenolphthalein powered was smeared and everything got ready and the left for Thirchengode by 2 P.M. Thus, the case as projected by the prosecution, was on 09.05.2002 morning only. P.W.2 came over to their office is highly doubtful. The prosecution did not think it fit to examine the other official witness. P.W.3 being the only official witness seriously contradicts the version of the prosecution.27/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 201728. It assumes significance because P.W.3 again would state that when the complaint was given by P.W.2, and instructions were made, it was done both by P.W.14 Trap Laying Officer and P.W.15 Investigation Officer, which runs counter to the case of the prosecution. This assumption gains significance as both P.W.2, the decoy witness, and P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, acknowledge they are related to each other. The relationship, the haste, and the contradictory version of the official witness certainly throws doubt on the fairness of the trap proceedings. It would be unsafe to rely on such trap proceedings.29. However, the facts that can be safely held to be proven concern the demand made by the appellant. In this case, the defence attributes motive to P.W.2. It is evident that the appellant removed the portion of the superstructure put up by P.W.2 and his family on the street. A review of the oral evidence shows that it is not only P.W.2's encroachment that was 28/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017removed; several encroachments along the pathway were cleared, and these actions were taken on orders from higher authorities. Conversely, P.W.2's need for copies of the documents does not create any doubt in the Court’s mind. P.W.2 clearly spoke about the demand made. The recovery of the copies, done in the presence of official witnesses from the hall in the R.D.O’s office from the bundle kept by the appellant, corroborates P.W.2's version. Therefore, I believe that the Prosecution has proved the demand for a bribe amount by the appellant. However, the further trap proceedings are doubtful and do not inspire confidence. Thus, the appellant is still liable to be convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, he is liable to be acquitted under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the same Act. With reference to the question of sentence, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is completely paralysed and is not even able to move around at this age of 72 years. It is also stated that he has already undergone Imprisonment for a period of 20 days pending investigation and he has also paid a fine 29/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017amount of Rs.2,000/- already.30. In view thereof, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed on the following terms:(i) The appellant’s conviction for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is upheld, and the appellant is sentenced to undergo six months' Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-;(ii) It is stated that the appellant has already paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- as fine and the same shall be taken into account for the above. The period of imprisonment already undergone can be set off;(iii) The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.05.08.2025Neutral Citation: yesgrsTo1. The Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal.30/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 20172. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Namakkal.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.31/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grsCrl.A.No.272 of 201732/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.272 of 2017.08.202533/33