Madrasorders High Court · 2025

Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023stated that he had to pay the Electricity Board the charges separately, but the Rs.3,000/- was personally for him. Since P.W.2 did not want to pay a bribe, he was advised to lodge a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Wing. Meanwhile, there was a temple festival in his native place, and he could not do any work for a week. Again, only on 05.07.2012, at about 1.30 P.M, he contacted the first accused on his mobile phone No.9445850172 from his mobile No.8124686868, who insisted and directed P.W.2 to come with the Rs.3,000/- at 6.00 P.M to his office, and only then would the application for electricity connection be considered. 4. Upon contacting Rajarathinam, the owner of the property, he paid Rs.3,000/- and directed P.W.2 to report the details to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and take action. Therefore, P.W.2 requested that since neither he nor the owner is interested in paying a bribe, action be taken against the first accused for demanding a bribe of Rs.3,000/-. P.W.14 then proceeded to set up a trap. He issued a request letter to the Agricultural Department and the 4/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023Health Department for witnesses. The Agricultural Department notified Sankar, and the Health Department notified Srinivasan as witnesses. Subsequently, P.W.14 introduced the informant Sadhasivam to these witnesses. On the same day, around 16:45, the Rs.3,000/-, composed of six 500-rupee notes, was obtained from P.W.2, and a Sodium Carbonate test was performed, which showed no change in the liquid’s color. The money was then entrusted to one Thanishlas for spraying Phenolphthalein powder on the notes, and a test was conducted through Sankar. When touched, the Sodium Carbonate solution turned pink. After explaining the process, P.W.2 was instructed that the amount should only be paid if the first accused demands it, and that the witness Srinivasan (P.W.5) should observe everything inside the office. They entered the office at about 18:25 and exited around 18:40. As per the prearranged sign, P.W.2 removed the watch he was wearing on his left wrist and tied it again. Upon receiving the signal, the trap team approached P.W.2 and inquired about what had happened.5/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 20235. P.W.2 stated that when he arrived at the Electricity Board office, he inquired about Senthilkumar (the second accused), who was sitting there. The second accused then contacted the first accused by phone and later handed the phone to P.W.2, Sadhasivam, to pay a bribe of Rs.3,000 to the second accused. The second accused also said that he knew about the transaction since he had inspected the premises himself, and he handed over the tainted money of Rs.3,000/-. He identified the second accused. After identification, it was noted that the second accused appeared agitated, and P.W.14 asked Srinivasan again, who confirmed the same. Subsequently, a Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared in two tumblers, and when the second accused’s fingers were immersed, the liquid turned pink.6. At the same time, the first accused also entered the office, and after explaining the circumstances, both were arrested. Upon enquiry about the bribe money, the second accused took it out from his pant pocket and handed it over. After providing the second accused with alternative clothing, his 6/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023pants were tested and turned pink. The pink solution was then collected in a bottle and sealed. Subsequently, the money was seized. The recovery mahazar was prepared around 8:20 P.M, and at about 8:40 P.M, the house of the second accused in Pallikaranai was searched, but no seizure was made from there. This process was completed by approximately 9:30 P.M. Later, at around 10:15 P.M, the house of the first accused was searched until 10:45 P.M., with no further recoveries. During enquiry, the first accused admitted that since he was not in the office, he asked the second accused to receive the money. He also stated that he had received the money for his expenses. After the recoveries, the amount was deposited through Form-19, and the First Information Report was altered. The case file was then handed over to P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, who examined him and recorded his statement. Subsequently, P.W.15, Chandrasekaran, continued the investigation, collected additional evidence, and filed a Final Report before the Trial Court on 12.09.2013.7/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 20237. The Final Report was taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.8 of 2013. After issuing summons, the accused appeared and copies were provided on 25.03.2014. Two charges were framed against both accused: first, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.3,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; second, for abusing their official positions to unlawfully obtain Rs.3,000/- as a pecuniary advantage under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the same Act. Both accused denied the charges and stood trial. To prove the case, Thangavel, who granted sanction for prosecution, was examined as P.W.1. The informant, Sadhasivam, was examined as P.W.2. The property owner who signed the application for electricity connection was examined as P.W.3. Rukmani, the other owner and mother of Rajarathinam, was examined as P.W.4. Srinivasan, the official witness who accompanied the decoy and witnessed the trap, was examined as P.W.5. Prabhakaran, an official from TANGEDCO who explained the process for consumer applications, was examined as P.W.6. Sankar, a witness to the recovery mahazar, was examined as P.W.7. 8/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023Pandian, the Revenue Superintendent from TANGEDCO who witnessed the incident in the office on the day of the trap, was examined as P.W.8. Pairan Steephan, the Assistant Executive Engineer of TANGEDCO, was examined regarding the procedure for sanctioning temporary electricity connections and the applicable fees. Yagathkumar, the Line Inspector from TANGEDCO present during the trap and arrest, was examined as P.W.10. Palani, the Nodal Officer from VODAFONE India Limited through whom call details were marked, was examined as P.W.11. Gireesh, the Nodal Officer from BSNL, through whom call details were marked, was examined as P.W.12. Visalatchi, the Forensic Expert who examined samples and submitted the report, was examined as P.W.13. Mathew David, the Trap Laying Officer, was examined as P.W.14. The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.15.8. On behalf of the prosecution, the sanction order was marked as Ex.P-1. The application in Form-I submitted by P.W.2 for electricity grant 9/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023was marked as Ex.P-2. The complaint made by P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P-3. The handing-over mahazar for obtaining the amount from P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P-4. The request letter sent to summon witnesses was marked as Ex.P-5. The Attendance Register of the accused's office was marked as Ex.P-6. The recovery mahazar was marked as Ex.P-7. The search reports of both of the accused's houses were marked as Exs.P-8 and P-9. The call details for cellular No.8124686868 were marked as Exs.P-10 and P-11. The Forensic Report was marked as Ex.P-12. The First Information Report was marked as Ex.P-13. The request letters to both departments, sent by P.W.14 for witness requests, were marked as Ex.P-14 and P-15. The receipt register of applications maintained in the TANGEDCO office is marked as Ex.P-16. The demand register in the same office is marked as Ex.P-17. A copy of the sanctioned register maintained at the office of the Assistant Engineer is marked as Ex.P-18. The rough sketch was marked as Ex.P-19. A copy of the sale deed executed by P.W.2, Sadhasivam, in favor of Savithri, was marked as Ex.P-20. The recovered six 500-rupee notes were marked as 10/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023M.O.1 series, and the sealed solution for dipping the right hand of the accused was marked as M.O.2. The sealed solution for dipping the left hand was marked as M.O.3. The sealed solution for dipping the pant pocket was marked as M.O.4. The pant itself was marked as M.O.5.9. Upon being questioned about the evidence on record, the accused denied it as false. During the cross-examination, the Inspection Report was marked as Ex.D-1, and the admitted and denied signatures of Sadhasivam were marked as Ex.D-2. The order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate was summoned and marked as a court document in Ex.C-1. The Trial Court heard the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused, and after considering the arguments made and the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, it found that P.W.2 had deposed about the earlier demand and that on the day the second accused was found in the office, he demanded the amount stating that the money was both from him and the Assistant Engineer. Accordingly, he 11/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023gave the amount, which the second accused counted with his hands and kept in his left pant pocket. Therefore, it rejected the defense argument that the second accused could never be implicated in the case. 10. Thereafter, the Trial Court rejected the argument of the second accused regarding Ex.P-13 and the signature of P.W.2 found there, as well as whether the copy of the First Information Report was received by P.W.2 or not. These facts are not relevant for determining whether there was a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, since the Court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rajesh Yadav and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Crl.A.Nos.339-340 of 2014). Subsequently, the Trial Court considered P.W.2's further evidence that the first accused had explicitly demanded Rs.3,000/- for processing the application. The Court also rejected the argument regarding P.W.13's evidence about the signature on the First Information Report, as it was not further argued that there had been interpolation or any alteration in the contents of the report. Next, the 12/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023Court dismissed the argument about the delay in the report reaching the Court. Upon reviewing the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5, the Court found the elements of demand and acceptance to be proven. It deemed that part of P.W.2's testimony acceptable. The Court also dismissed the arguments concerning the procedure for conducting the trap. Based on the instruction of the first accused and the fact that the second accused received the money, along with evidence from P.W.5, P.W.7, P.W.8, P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13, P.W.14, and P.W.15, the Court held that the charges were proved. Minor contradictions did not benefit the accused. Furthermore, the Court rejected the arguments about the non-recovery of mobile phones and the absence of telephone call mentions in the mahazar. The Court examined the statement of the second accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., noting that his version admits that he was accompanied by another person along with P.W.2. Arguments about the difference in timing and other issues were also rejected. The Court also considered and rejected claims that the recovery mahazar and the entire complaint were motivated by instigation from 13/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023Bhaskar, Area Counsellor. It then addressed arguments that the first accused, a Group-B officer, was involved as a witness, emphasizing that since the trap was set up on short notice, this violation was not fatal. Other arguments related to violations of paragraph Nos.42, 43, etc., of the Vigilance Manual were rejected. The Court further dismissed the explanation provided by the second accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, both accused were convicted and sentenced to three years of Rigorous Imprisonment for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default imprisonment of six months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by this, the appellants/accused filed the present Criminal Appeals.11. Heard Mr.M.Arvind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, and Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.14/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 202312. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants first argues that, based on P.W.1's evidence, the sanctioning authority showed complete lack of consideration, and the sanction order did not clearly specify the roles of both accused. Commenting on P.W.2's evidence, the learned Senior Counsel states that P.W.2 testified he was busy with temple festivities between the first and second demands, and also that he took the money and walked away. Moreover, since the signature in the F.I.R does not match P.W.2's, it suggests the entire episode was motivated. P.W.2 also admits that the police team accompanied him in plain clothes. Additionally, P.W.3 admitted that Bhaskar, a Counsellor from Thoraipakkam Municipality, is his relative and further acknowledged that the electricity connection at the relevant place was disconnected due to unpaid bills. 13. Commenting on the evidence of P.W.5, he would submit that no time is mentioned as to when he arrived at the Vigilance office. His 15/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023evidence regarding the failure of the trap for the first and second accused is suddenly focused and questionable. P.W.5's claim that he saw the first accused is unbelievable. He is a C-Grade officer and could not have been roped in as a witness to trap a B-Grade officer. P.W.5 admitted signing the entrustment mahazar much later. Regarding the other trap witness, P.W.7, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that his evidence is at best hearsay and that P.W.2 did not sign the entrustment mahazar. Then, examining the evidence of Trap Laying Officer, P.W.14, he would argue that even the name of the complainant is wrongly mentioned. P.W.14 deposed that he gave strict instructions to give money only to the first accused, whereas P.W.2 gave the money to the second accused. His responses regarding the typing of the entrustment mahazar, etc., suggest a preconceived plan. He did not seize the cellphones from P.W.2 or the first accused. He claims that the first accused arrived at the spot only at 7.30 P.M and did not record the statements of the accused in full, violating the Vigilance Manual. He also did not sign Ex.P-19, the rough sketch. 16/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 202314. Commenting on the evidence of P.W.15, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that Section 161 of Cr.P.C., statements were not sent to the Court periodically, even though they were recorded. The letters permitting the witnesses to act as trap witnesses were not produced before the Court, nor is it stated that the letter was produced before P.W.14. The Investigating Officer also did not verify the ownership or address related to the phone numbers, for which call details are marked. On this basis, the learned Senior Counsel would argue that the judgment was hastily delivered without considering the arguments made on behalf of the accused. If P.W.2 is only a contractor and P.W.3 is the owner of the property, the complaint, in the normal course, should have been made only by P.W.3 himself. The circumstances under which the complaint was made are improbable on the face of it. 15. It can be seen that earlier, regarding the same premises, the 17/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023electricity connection was disconnected, and even after registering the case, the temporary connection was never utilized, nor was any building constructed even as of the date of the cross-examination. Furthermore, P.W.2's own evidence clearly shows that he hurriedly left the currency notes and went out, without any basis, leading to the implicated involvement of the second accused, and subsequently, the first accused was also roped in. Only because P.W.5 is a stock witness, he was included in the case in violation of the Manual. The entire case of P.W.2 that on 05.07.2012, at about 1.10 P.M, in a phone call, the first accused demanded money, is improbable, as there is evidence of a specific mobile conversation between P.W.2 and the Trap Laying Officer, P.W.14, well before the alleged demand, i.e., at 11.04 P.M on the same day, and also early in the morning. The call details show repeated conversations between the Trap Laying Officer, P.W.2, the P.A. to the said Counsellor, and the Investigating Officer, who also spoke to P.W.2 during the trap conducted at about 6.15 P.M. The entire call records produced by the prosecution completely dispute their case. The entire 18/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023exercise seems to have been aimed at implicating these accused, especially since the said Counsellor was inimically disposed towards them. 16. Despite the phone call that is said to have occurred, it was not recorded. Paragraph No.43, regarding the laying of the trap; paragraph No.45, about the tape recording of the conversation; paragraph No.49, relating to the preparation of the site plan; paragraph No.53, concerning the Investigating Officer; and paragraph No.47, regarding the questioning of the accused, were all violated. Therefore, the entire trap, which was purportedly aimed at the first accused and ended up involving the second accused, along with the widespread violations of the principles and directions in the Vigilance Manual, would render the entire trap a failed and stage-managed operation, and it was done solely for malicious reasons. The prosecution's case suffers from significant gaps, deliberate suppressions, and numerous inflated questions, leading to the accused being entitled to the benefit of the doubt.19/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 202317. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Soundarajan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance Anti-Corruption, Dindigul1, specifically paragraph Nos.11 to 13, to argue that the demand must be proved beyond any doubt. To support the proposition that, in the absence of proof regarding demand and acceptance, the mere recovery of tainted money does not establish the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the learned Senior Counsel cites the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu2. The Senior Counsel also relies on the Constitution Bench judgment in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi)3, where the Court discusses the manner of proof required for establishing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After resolving the question, the case was ultimately decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta 1 (2023) 16 SCC 1412 (2021) 3 SCC 6873 AIR 2023 SC 33020/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)4. The learned Senior Counsel refers to paragraph Nos.25 to 30 to argue that, unless all the necessary ingredients are proven, no conviction can be sustained.18. The learned Senior Counsel would then rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh5, especially paragraph Nos.7 to 9, for the proposition that when there is doubt regarding demand and acceptance, mere recovery is not sufficient. The learned Senior Counsel would cite the judgment of this Court, dated 10.09.2024, in D. Manoharan Vs. State (Crl. A. No. 103 of 2017), and the judgment of this Court, dated 24.10.2024, in V. Radhakrishnan Vs. State (Crl. A. No. 282 of 2019), to argue that the prosecution's case is fabricated and therefore, unbelievable, and no conviction should be based on it. In view of this, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the Criminal Appeals should be allowed and the accused should 4 (2023) 18 SCC 2515 (2014) 13 SCC 5521/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023be acquitted.19. Per contra, Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that the demand by the first accused is proved by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5. Even though P.W.2 partly turned hostile, the demand made by the second accused is proved by the evidence of P.W.5. The recovery of the tainted money from the pocket and the consequent test clearly prove the acceptance. The retracted evidence of P.W.2, suggesting he kept the money on the table, is not supported by other evidence, which shows that the entire money was recovered from the pant pocket of the second accused. Therefore, the demand and acceptance are proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The first and second accused are public servants, as proved by the examination of official witnesses from TANGEDCO. The purpose for which the money was asked was also established through these witnesses, including the procedure to be followed upon receipt of the application and the official fee to be paid, all of which 22/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023are on record. Hence, it is proven that the sum of Rs.3,000/- demanded was only a bribe, and the purpose was solely for performing their duties of inspecting, processing the application, and granting the electricity connection. This too has been established. The application, the relevant file, and the registers maintained in TANGEDCO were all marked before the Trial Court. The alleged time difference, as argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, can at best be considered a minor discrepancy and cannot be accepted by this Court. Therefore, they contend there is nothing for this Court to interfere with, and the entire story involving the interference of the Counsellor has been rightly disbelieved by the Trial Court. The Trial Court considered each issue in detail and rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants.20. During the course of the arguments, when specifically asked by this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor initially stated that there is a discrepancy regarding the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.14 about the first 23/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023accused's visit to the office. He also added that the entire arrest memo of both accused persons is completely missing from his file.21. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.22. At the outset, when the prosecution had marked Exs.P-10 and P-11, which are call details intended to prove the telephonic demand allegedly made by the first accused through P.W.2, the decoy witness, the learned Senior Counsel, relying heavily on this statement, attempted to show that although the prosecution claims the complaint was lodged after the second demand at 1.30 P.M on 05.07.2012, there is a call from the Trap Laying Officer's mobile number to P.W.2's mobile at 8.36.45 A.M. Similarly, calls occurred between P.W.2 and Kalyanam, P.A. to the Counsellor, Bhaskar, and the Trap Laying Officer at various times before the complaint was lodged. Most importantly, the learned Senior Counsel argued that at a critical 24/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023moment, when the decoy entered the office, the first accused was absent, and money was entrusted to the second accused, at 6.17.38 P.M, there was a call from the Investigating Officer Chandrasekar's mobile to P.W.2. All these points are ignored by the prosecution, rendering their case entirely false.23. Although there is a strong argument as the entire prosecution's case develops as if the de facto complainant, for the first time, approached the Trap Laying Officer by lodging a complaint after noon on 05.07.2012, unfortunately, this point was overlooked throughout the trial, and no cross-examination was conducted with the relevant witness or the Investigating Officer. Neither were any arguments made before the Trial Court. Therefore, at this stage, without additional proof pertaining to the mobile numbers of the Trap Laying Officer, Investigating Officer, P.A. to the Counsellor Bhaskar, etc., this argument cannot be accepted for the first time now on appeal.25/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 202324. Adverting to the other details of the case, the appellants are convicted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the allegation that there was a demand and acceptance of Rs.3,000/- as bribe to process an application for a temporary connection related to the site owned by P.W.3 and P.W.4, for which P.W.2 was acting as a contractor for construction. Regarding the issues of 'demand' and 'purpose', the evidence of P.W.2, supported by the testimony of the official trap witness P.W.5, in on record. Additionally, the entire file concerning the application submitted by P.W.2, along with the attached documents, and the fact that the first accused received the file, initiated action, and instructed the second accused to verify whether it fell within their jurisdiction is on record to demonstrate that the public duty related to the alleged demand.25. But the manner in which the trap is effected and the acceptance by the second accused is claimed requires scrutiny. Even though the case of the 26/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023prosecution is that after the trap was setup on 05.07.2012 and the decoy witness, P.W.2, along with the official witness, P.W.5 proceeded to the office with the tainted money smeared with Phenolphthalein powder and went to the office of the first accused at about 6.25 P.M and P.W.2 and P.W.5 went inside the office, they did not find the first accused and P.W.2 contacted the first accused over phone and he is said to have replied that it may take a while for him to come to the office and enquired who else is there in the office and P.W.2 mentioning that Senthilkumar was there, the first accused instructed P.W.2 to give phone to the second accused, Senthilkumar and after speaking to him, again spoke to P.W.2 and instructed him to pay the money to Senthilkumar. Upon the call being ended, Senthilkumar enquired P.W.2 as to whether he had brought the money as directed by the first accused and further demanded that since the said Marudhamani has gone out to pay the money, since the bribe amount is both for the first accused and for himself, the money was handed over and thereafter, upon the signal being made, the second accused was caught red-handed.27/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 202326. However, P.W.2, the decoy witness did not support the case of the prosecution with reference to this episode of acceptance. Though he deposed in his chief evidence about the demand and all the other procedures and planning of the trap, after entering into the office, the following was his evidence in chief:-"eh';fs; kpd;thhpa mYtyfj;jpy; nghFk;nghJ m';F ahUk; ,y;iy/ mjw;Fgpd;dh; bre;jpy;Fkhh; te;jhh;/ mthplk; V/< gw;wp nfl;nld;/ mth; 6 kzpf;F tUtjhf brhd;dhh;/ ehd; cldoahf V/</ mth;fspd; ifngrp vz;zpw;F bjhlh;g[ bfhz;nld;/ mg;nghJ mth; jhd; kpd;thhpa mYtyfj;jpw;F tUntd; vd;Wk; m';nfna fhj;jpUf;Fk;goa[k; brhd;dhh;, m';F ahh; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs; vd;W nfl;lhh;, ehd; bre;jpy; ,Uf;fpwhh; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ gpd;dh; bre;jpyplk; nghid bfhLf;f brhd;dhh;/ bre;jpy; nghdpy; ngrptpl;L, tUthh; ,U';fs; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ gpd;dh; ehd; bre;jpyplk; gzj;ij bfhLj;njd;, me;j gzk; jw;rkak; vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLtJ, mJ rh/bgh/1 mth; v';fis btspna nghf brhd;dhh;, ehDk; btspna te;Jtpl;nld;/ mjw;Fs; btspapypUe;j nghyprhh;fs; cs;ns 28/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023te;Jtpl;lhh;fs;/ kPz;Lk; Mhpag[uj;jpYs;s xU mYtyfj;jpw;F vd;id tutiHj;J nghyprhh; ele;j tptuj;ij nfl;L gjpt[ bra;J bfhz;lhh;fs;/"Thus, it can be seen that he deposed as if, after speaking with the first accused in phone, the second accused asked him to wait and without any demand whatsoever, he voluntarily handed over the money to the second accused, Senthilkumar. 27. It is at this stage, P.W.2 was treated as hostile witness and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. However, when P.W.2 was cross-examined, he has categorically denied that in the phone call, the first accused directed him to pay the bribe amount to the second accused and after making the demand, the second accused also accepted the said sum. Inspite of the decoy witness/de facto complainant turning hostile, still, the prosecution can prove the offence with other evidence. In this case, P.W.5 had supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.5 who is the only witness to the acceptance, has deposed that upon being contacted through mobile 29/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023phone, even without cutting the call, P.W.2 handed over the mobile phone to the second accused, Senthilkumar, who, upon speaking to the first accused, took out the file belonging to P.W.2 and thereafter demand P.W.2 as to whether he has brought the money as directed by the first accused and further stated that the money is for the first accused as well as for himself. At that juncture, P.W.2 handed over the money which was kept in the pant pocket by the second accused.28. If the prosecution's case had stopped there, there will be no difficulty whatsoever in believing the evidence of P.W.5, but, however, the further deposition is what concerns the Court. It is said that within minutes after acceptance, P.W.5 and P.W.2 came out of the office and signalled to the Investigating Officer and informed him about the acceptance of the bribe amount and even while the Trap Laying Officer went inside and started introducing him to the second accused and the second accused was starting to became nervous. It is further said that immediately, the first accused, 30/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023Marudhamani, entered the office. If the first accused, Marudhamani, was to reach the office within minutes, the entire story of the prosecution, as if he instructed P.W.2 to hand over the money to the second accused, becomes doubtful. In this case, because, when immediately Marudhamani said to have come to the office at about 6.45 P.M itself and he is said to have been arrested, in the entire records before the Trial Court, the arrest memo is completely burked by the prosecution. Though non-production of an arrest memo by itself will not be fatal to the trial, in the context of the instant case, it lends to the unreliability of the prosecution's case.29. In this context, the argument on behalf of the appellants concerning the motive of the local Counsellor becomes relevant. It is argued that he had been reprimanded by the party high command for misbehaving with the Electricity Board officials, that he is closely associated with P.W.2 and P.W.3, and that he was found in their company on that day. Individuals with ill motives may be the ones to come forward with complaints about 31/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023demand and acceptance of bribes. The Court will objectively examine the evidence to determine whether there was an actual demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, regardless of the ill motive attributed to the decoy witness or any other person involved. Ill motive calls for even more strict scrutiny of the evidence against the accused.30. It is the case of the prosecution that the Trap Laying Officer has categorically instructed the de facto complainant/P.W.2 to hand over the money only to Marudhamani, the first accused, and only upon his demand made on the spot. However, P.W.2 on his own decided to hand over the money to the second accused. The prosecution asserts that this was done according to the first accused's instructions over the phone, and P.W.2 states that he voluntarily handed over the money to the second accused. When motive is attributed to somehow ensure the success of the trap, the Court must examine this with care and caution. The circumstances that lead to the probability of the defence are that even after several years, during cross-32/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3, it was admitted that the plot remained vacant and they never attempted any construction. It is further noted that previously, a temporary connection was obtained to start construction, but it was disconnected due to non-payment. The subject matter application is said to be their second attempt.31. Further in this case, there are violations of the safeguards and procedures that are contained in the Vigilance Manual. For instance, originally when the trap was planned only for the first accused, who is a Group-B officer, the P.W.5 official witness is of lower cadre while paragraph No.41 lays down that as far as possible higher rank officials shall be the witnesses. Therefore, I am of the view that the evidence that is let in by the prosecution with reference to the acceptance renders the whole episode as doubtful. The possibility of motive to somehow trap the accused cannot be ruled out in this case. P.W.2 neither followed the instructions that are given to him by the Trap Laying Officer nor deposed before the Court as per his 33/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023original version. Again, in his cross-examination, he partly denied the facts while admitting some of the facts. Thus, his entire evidence becomes unworthy of acceptance. 32. The evidence of P.W.5 is that the second accused informed P.W.2 that the first accused, Maruthamani had instructed him that if P.W.2 comes, he must be directed to call him. The evidence of Trap Laying Officer is that P.W.2 and P.W.5 informed him the second accused called the first accused and handed over the phone to P.W.2. This contradiction coupled with facts that P.W.5 was called as a witness and the requests letters were not marked, and that he was of the inferior rank all put together, does not elevate the evidence of P.W.5 to be of stellar quality to be relied upon solely for convicting the accused. Therefore, I am of the view that there element of doubt as to whether at the instance of the said Counsellor, Bhaskar, P.W.2 to P.W.4, being the persons known to him, in a motivated manner, lodged the complaint and arranged the trap and when the first accused was not there, 34/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023were bent on making the trap happen some how or the other, cannot be ruled out and thus, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 33. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals stand allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate at Chengalpattu in in Special S.C.No.8 of 2013, vide the order, dated 19.09.2023 shall stand set aside. The fine amount, if any paid, is ordered to be refunded. 07.07.2025Neutral Citation: yes/nogrsTo1. The Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai City - I, R.A.Puram, Chennai. 35/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 20233. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.36/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 2023D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.grsCrl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 202337/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.1186 and 1131 of 202307.07.202538/38