Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and imposed a punishment of 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The appellant was also convicted of an offense under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed before this Court.3. On 30.01.2004, when P.W.15 Raja was on duty at the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Detachment Police Station in Erode, he registered a case after receiving a complaint from Tr.G.K. Pushparaj under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint alleged that he worked as a consultant for various voluntary organizations, including Meglen Home for the Aged. Meanwhile, the appellant, P. Thangavelu, who was the Sub-Registrar in charge of Registration of Societies and Chits at Gobichettipalayam, was required to inspect the records maintained by the home and accept the returns. On 13.01.2004, while pointing out certain defects in the records, he allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500/-. Finding the information credible, a case was registered, and a trap was laid. After verifying the allegations, the complainant was instructed to come with the sum of Rs.500/- in cash. On 30.01.2004, a mahazar for handing over the money was prepared, 2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017and following the procedures, the Rs.500/- notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder were handed over to the complainant. The trap was executed on the same day. At about 3:20 PM, the decoy witness signalled. Subsequently, the trap laying officer entered the appellant’s office. It was stated that the accused received the bribe of Rs.500/- from the decoy witness and kept it in a black rexine bag placed on a small bench near his chair.4. The trap-laying officer then entered the office and, upon examining the appellant/accused, confirmed that he was acting as the Sub-Registrar responsible for registering Chits and Societies. When both his hands were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, they turned pink, indicating contact with phenolphthalein powder. He admitted receiving the bribe money and handed over the sum of Rs. 500/- (tainted notes). After checking the serial numbers, the notes were recovered. At that time, the appellant/accused also handed over another sum of Rs. 500/-, the notes in a folded condition. No explanation was provided for this additional sum of Rs. 500/-. Upon further check, Rs. 185/- was found from his shirt pocket and Rs. 7,730/- was found in a cover on his desk. He admitted Rs. 185/- as his personal money and Rs. 7,730/- as his salary amount.3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 20175. After completing the formalities, the accused was arrested, and further investigation was conducted by the investigating Officer P.W.16, who completed the investigation and submitted a final report on 30.04.2005. Upon issuance of summons, the Trial Court, on 16.06.2005, framed two charges against the appellant/accused. The first charge was that, while working at Gobichettipalayam as the Sub-Registrar of Chits and Societies, on 30.01.2004, he demanded and received a sum of Rs. 500/- as bribe from G.K. Pushparaj to avoid taking action on deficiencies related to the Meglen Old Age Home, thereby committing an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the same act, the second charge was that, as a public servant, he attempted to gain and obtained undue pecuniary advantage by accepting the Rs. 500/-, which constituted an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.6. The appellant/accused denied the charges and stood trial. The prosecution, to prove the charges, examined Dhanamjayan, the Additional Secretary (Revenue) Department, who spoke about grant of sanction as P.W.1. The de facto complainant/decoy witness Pushparaj was examined as P.W.2 and testified about the demand and how the money was handed over to the appellant/accused. Murthy, an official witness to the trap, was examined as 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017P.W.3. Nizar, an assistant in the Sub-Registrar’s Office, was examined as P.W.4, confirming the presence of the complainant in the office on the relevant date. Vijayalakshmi was examined as P.W.5 and was present during the trap proceedings. Jayanti, another assistant, was examined as P.W.6 and spoke about the search conducted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption unit. Thirumurthy, another assistant in the Sub-Registrar’s Office, was examined as P.W.7. Jodhi, an assistant, was examined as P.W.8 and discussed the receipt of records related to the old age home and the trap incident. Raju, another assistant in the TN Palayam Sub-Registrar Office, was examined as P.W.9, and described the police search of the office, including himself. Shankar was examined as P.W.10 and testified about the search and incident. Natarajan, an office assistant in the same Sub-Registrar Office, explained the trap was conducted at 3:30 hours, with the vigilance and anti-corruption police conducting the search. M.S. Thirumurthy, the court clerk, was examined as P.W.12 and described the police requests for forensic examination. Maria Selvirosilin, the forensic expert, was examined as P.W.13, stating she examined the samples and submitted the report. Dhanraj, Secretary of the Meglen Old Age Home, was examined as P.W.14, stating the decoy witness worked as a consultant for the home and discussing its financial status and the fact that it did not exist at the time of examination. Raja, the trap laying 5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017officer, was examined as P.W.15 and provided details about receiving the complaint, recording the FIR, setting up the trap, recovering tainted money, and preparing the mahazar. Investigating officer Balashanmugham was examined as P.W.16 and testified about conducting further investigations and filing the final report. 7. On behalf of the prosecution, Ex.P1 to P42 were marked. These included details from the attendance register to prove the presence of the accused in the office on the relevant date. Relevant pages from the file related to the old age home and other documents, such as the FIR, Form 91, forensic report, entrustment and recovery mahazar, etc., were marked. The rupee notes amounting to Rs. 500/- that were recovered were marked as M.O.1; the rexin bag was marked as M.O.2; the phenolphthalein test samples were marked as M.O.3 and M.O.4; the cloth used for sealing the samples was marked as M.O.5; another sum of Rs. 500/- recovered was marked as M.O.6; and other monies recovered from the accused were marked as M.O.7. Upon being questioned about the evidence on record and the allegations made, the appellant/accused denied both. He also denied that the recovery was made from him. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence.6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 20178. The Trial Court proceeded to hear the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. After considering the prosecution's case, the Trial Court, based on the evidence of P.W.2 (Decoy Witness) and P.W.3 (Official Witness), found that there was evidence of demand. Based on the trap proceedings and the witnesses' testimonies, the court determined that the appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 500 and accordingly convicted him for both the offences and sentenced him as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.9. Heard Mr. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the appellant. The counsel, reviewing the entire record, argued that the decoy witness was not responsible for the old age home but had explicitly stated that he obtained prior permission from the person in charge. He further submitted that the witness received Rs. 500/- from that person, and only this amount was handed over to the Sub-Registrar. Therefore, it is clear from P.W.2's (the decoy witness) testimony that he received the money on 29.01.2004. A review of P.W.14's evidence, the person in charge of the home, shows that he did not take any such steps. P.W.14 testified that he learned about the trap only later, and there was no money in the home's account. Hence, it appears that P.W.2 acted independently and took it upon himself to make the allegations. 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 201710. Further, he would submit that the evidence of P.W.2 should not be accepted by this Court regarding the alleged demand. Additionally, the defence, has raised serious doubts about the prosecution's case through the cross-examination of P.W.2, especially concerning the alleged acceptance. In this regard, it is argued that although the prosecution claims the appellant accepted the tainted currency, P.W.2 himself admitted during cross-examination that he initially and mistakenly handed over different notes amounting to Rs. 500/-, which he possessed at the time of the demand. 11. Thereafter, upon realising that the appellant was not at his seat, he clandestinely kept the notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder, also in the rexin bag. Therefore, the entire prosecution case, with reference to the demand, is doubtful, and the purpose is also highly questionable. When the acceptance is disproved during the trial, the trial court erred in convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12. Per contra, Mr. S. Udayakumar, the learned Government Advocate 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017(Crl. Side), would submit that the relevant files regarding the inspection and the deficiencies pointed out were marked on behalf of the prosecution. P.W.2 would testify that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.500/- as a bribe. Although there is a discrepancy concerning how the rupee notes were handed over, it is evident that both sums of Rs. 500/- were recovered from the rexin bag, and therefore, the acceptance is proven to that extent. Hence, he would argue that the trial Court correctly convicted the petitioner when the acceptance and recovery have been duly established according to law.13. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 14. Apart from the other grounds, it can be seen that the entire case of the prosecution with reference to the acceptance of the bribe has been thoroughly dismantled during the cross-examination. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of PW2-decoy witness is extracted hereunder:-me;j rkaj;jpy; jhd; vjphp Kjy; jsj;jpy;“ ,Ue;J fPnH ,w';fp te;jhh; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/ nghyP!; ghh;l;o te;j gpwF buf;rpd; igia jpwe;J ghh;j;j nghJ jhd; ehd; bra;j jtW bjhpa te;J vjphpf;F bjhpahky; nghyPrhhplk; gpdhg;jpypd; jltpa 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017nehl;Lf;fs; vd;dplnk kwe;Jitj;Jf; bfhz;nld; vd;w tptuj;ij brhy;y mth;fs; mwpt[iu go vjphpf;F bjhpahky; me;j gpdhg;jypd; gt[lh; jltpa Ie;J E}W U:gha; nehl;Lf;fis buf;rpd; igf;F moapy; itj;J tpl;nld;/ me;j rkaj;jpy; vd;dp tp$[pbyd;;!; ghh;l;ofs; btspna bry;yr; brhy;yp kWehs; fhiy mYtyfk; tUk;go brhd;dhh;fs;/ me;j buf;rpd; igf;Fs; itf;f;gl;l gzk; ehd; jtWjyhf itj;j vd;Dila gzk; vd;Wk;. mJ vjphpapd; gzk; my;y vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpay;y/”15. Thus, it can be seen that P.W.2 submits that initially, when the trap was being carried out, by mistake, he had handed over a different set of notes amounting to Rs.500/-, which were not smeared with phenolphthalein powder, wrongly to the appellant. It is further deposed by him that thereafter, realising his mistake, he himself once again kept the tainted notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder in the rexin bag. Even though the hands of the appellant/accused turned pink, it can be seen that in the said rexin bag, there were also other notes. Hence, the entire story of the acceptance of Rs.500 /- becomes doubtful. To top it all, two sets of notes, amounting to Rs. 500, were recovered, and these were also produced before the trial Court as M.O. 1 series as well as M.O.6 series. It can be seen that only one set of Rs. 500 notes was subjected to expert examination. 16. Though it may be right to argue that the serial numbers were already 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017noted and thus only those notes were subjected to forensic examination, it is evident that when the accused was using the said bag, and when the other set of notes amounting to Rs.500/-, which were not tested, was also kept in the same bag, and when P.W.2 himself stated that he placed the notes in the bag when the appellant went to the first floor for lunch, then the entire prosecution case becomes doubtful. Furthermore, it can be observed that both the decoy witness and the official witness agree that the accused used only his left hand to count the Rs.500 notes and with that same hand, he placed the money inside the rexin bag. When the accused's fingers were immersed in the solution, both hands turned pink. Offences of demanding and accepting a bribe under Section 7 and criminal misconduct under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) are serious. The more severe the offence, the higher the standard of evidence required for conviction. Given the significant doubt about one element—the acceptance of the bribe—I find it difficult to uphold the prosecution's case. The trial court erred in concluding that the charges were proven.17. Accordingly, finding merits, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 16.12.2017 in Spl. C.C. No. 9 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Erode shall stand set aside. The accused is acquitted of the charges. The 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017fine amount paid is ordered to be refunded.25.06.2025Neutral Citation: Yes/NonslTo1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Vigilance and Anti Corruption,Erode.2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Erode.3. The Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Madras High Court.D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.nsl12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No. 791 of 2017Crl.A.No.791 of 201725.06.202513/13