In Ramesh and Ors v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR

Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025ORDERThe petitioner, an Inspector of Police of Vadasery Police Station, was arrested inconnection with a case in Crime No.7 of 2013 on 28.06.2013 that he has demandedand received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.2, who is running a CD shop. Therespondent/Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing has filed a final report as againstthe petitioner and the same was taken on file by the learned Special Judge/ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2014. Beforethe trial Court, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses, marked 32 documentsand 4 material objects. In conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge/Chief JudicialMagistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, by its Judgment dated 28.01.2025, foundthe petitioner guilty for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act and convicted and sentenced him as follows:(i) For the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, toundergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with thedefault sentence of six months simple imprisonment.(ii) For the offence under Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/- with the default sentence of six months simple imprisonment. As against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed an2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025appeal before this Court in Crl.A.(MD)No.202 of 2025 and the same has beenadmitted by this Court on 02.04.2025. The petitioner has also moved this petition tosuspend the sentence imposed by the trial Court, pending the appeal. 2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner, an Inspector of Police of Vadasery Police Station, has registered a case asagainst the defacto complainant/P.W.2 and therefore, this complaint has been foistedas against the petitioner by P.W.2 at the instance of the CD shop owners' association.The learned Senior Counsel further submits that P.W.2, during his crossexamination, has admitted that the petitioner was taking bath at the time of trap andthe amount of Rs.50,000/- was kept by him in a diary, which was found in a coffeetable. According to him, the amount was not handed over to the petitioner asprojected by the prosecution case and there was no demand. It is a calculative casefoisted by the CD shop owners' association, in order to prevent the petitioner fromtaking further action as against the CD shop owners' association. 3. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred the evidence of P.W.3, anofficial independent witness, who accompanied P.W.2 at the time of trap and submitsthat the evidence of P.W.2, that the petitioner was taking bath at the time of trap, wasalso confirmed by the evidence of P.W.3. Therefore, according to the learned SeniorCounsel, there was no demand and there was no acceptance of trap amount as3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025projected by the prosecution. However, the case has been foisted, in order to preventthe petitioner from taking further course of action as against the CD shop owners'association. 4. The learned Senior Counsel has also pointed out that the alleged demandmade by the accused on 27.02.2013 was also not proved by the prosecution. Evenaccording to the Investigation Officer and other witnesses, the petitioner was notpresent in the police station as claimed by P.W.2. Therefore, according to the learnedSenior Counsel, the demand as well as the acceptance has not been proved by theprosecution in this case. However, the trial Court, without appreciating the evidenceof P.W.2 and P.W.3, who turned hostile during the trial, has convicted and sentencedthe petitioner erroneously. 5. The learned Senior Counsel has also relied on several grounds raised insupport of the Appeal and also submits that on completion of the interim suspensiongranted by the trial Court, the petitioner has surrendered before the trial Court on02.04.2025 and he is in jail. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel requested thisCourt to consider the case of the petitioner for suspending the sentence pending theappeal. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that this petitioner,who was working as Inspector of Police of Vadasery Police Station, has registered a4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025case as against P.W.2/Defacto complainant and also demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-as monthly mamool for not registering any case as against P.W.2. However, P.W.2and P.W.3 have turned hostile and that too only during the course of crossexamination. P.W.2/defacto complainant was examined in chief on 17.12.2015. Inthe chief examination, P.W.2/defacto complainant has narrated the incident as that ofthe prosecution that there was a demand and pursuant to the demand, he lodged awritten complaint before the respondent/ Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing andbased on the written complaint, a trap was arranged by the Vigilance and AntiCorruption Wing. In the chief examination, P.W.2 has also admitted that the demandas well as the acceptance made by the accused on 27.06.2013. However, he turnedhostile during the cross examination. P.W.2 was cross examined on various dates on04.01.2018, 11.04.2018, 25.04.2018 and 27.06.2019. He supported the case of theprosecution in all these hearings. He took U-Turn on 27.06.2019 for the reasons bestknown and turned hostile. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) pointed out the manner inwhich the cross examination was conducted after a period of three years from thedate of chief examination recorded by the trial Court. With regard to the evidence ofP.W.3, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that P.W.3 hassupported the case of the prosecution in chief examination on 20.07.2016, however, he5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025turned hostile on 03.10.2019. P.W.3. was also cross examined after a period of threeyears. Therefore, according to him, the witnesses were won over by the petitioner,who was an Inspector of Police and therefore, they have turned hostile during thetrial. 8. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submits that apart fromP.W.3, another independent witness, namely P.W.5, who accompanied P.W.2 andP.W.3 and other officials during the trap, has stated the manner in which the trap wasarranged and that P.W.3 also accompanied P.W.2 at the time of occurrence and othernarrations as projected by the prosecution. Therefore, according to him, theprosecution has sufficiently proved the case as against the petitioner. The learnedGovernment Advocate further submits that the petitioner, being an Inspector ofPolice, has not only committed the offence and he also went to the extent ofinfluencing the official witness and P.W.2 to make them as hostile during the courseof trial. Therefore, he opposed to grant suspension of sentence. 9. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materialsplaced on record.10. The petitioner was an Inspector of Police at Vadasery Police Station. He hasregistered a case as against P.W.2/defacto complainant on 20.06.2013. The staff ofP.W.2 was also arrested. P.W.2 claims that the petitioner/Inspector of Police has6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025demanded a monthly mamool of Rs.50,000/- in order to avoid any case to beregistered as against him in future. Therefore, the defacto complainant has lodgedthe above complaint before the respondent Police. 11. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side),P.W.2 has narrated the events as per the prosecution case in the chief examinationwhich was recorded on 17.12.2015. He has also supported the prosecution case in thecross examination even on 25.04.2018. However, he turned hostile on 27.06.2019. 12. This Court is unable to understand the manner in which the crossexamination was conducted by the trial Court. The person, who was examined inchief in the year 2015, was cross examined only in the year 2018. 13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, by referring theJudgment of the trial Court, has pointed out that it is on the fault of the prosecution. 14. The delay in examining the witness after a period of three years has madeP.W.2 to be a hostile witness. In this regard, this Court is inclined to refer theJudgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.14.1. In Ramesh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 2016 SupremeCourt 5554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated as under:“Threat and intimidation has been one of the major causes for thehostility of witnesses. Bentham said: “witnesses are the eyes and ears of7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025justice”. When the witnesses are not able to depose correctly in thecourt of law, it results in low rate of conviction and many times evenhardened criminals escape the conviction. It shakes public confidence inthe criminal justice delivery system.”14.2. In State v. Sanjeev Nanda, reported in (2102) 8 SCC 450, the Hon'bleSupreme Court has held as under: “Witness turning hostile is a major disturbing factor faced by thecriminal courts in India. Reasons are many for the witnesses turninghostile, but of late, we see, especially in high profile cases, there is aregularity in the witnesses turning hostile, either due to monetaryconsideration or by other tempting offers which undermine the entirecriminal justice system and people carry the impression that the mightyand powerful can always get away from the clutches of law thereby,eroding people’s faith in the system. .....Courts, however, cannot shut their eyes to the reality. If a witnessbecomes hostile to subvert the judicial process, the Courts shall notstand as a mute spectator and every effort should be made to bringhome the truth. Criminal judicial system cannot be overturned by those8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025gullible witnesses who act under pressure, inducement or intimidation.Further, Section 193 of the IPC imposes punishment for giving falseevidence but is seldom invoked.”15. P.W.3 is an official witness and he was working in the AgriculturalDepartment. He was summoned by the Investigation Officer during the trap to be awitness for the trap. P.W.3 was said to have accompanied P.W.2 at the time of givingmoney. The initial statement of P.W.3 reveals that money was handed over to thepetitioner. A phenolphthalein test was conducted and that report was marked.Material objects were also produced before the trial Court. However, P.W.3 turnedhostile during the cross examination on 03.10.2019 as if he has not accompaniedP.W.2 and he has informed that P.W.2 put the trap money in a diary which was keptin a coffee table. P.W.3 was also cross examined after a period of three years, i.e. on03.10.2019, when he was examined in chief on 20.07.2016. Permission was given bythe trial Court to cross examine the witnesses after a period of three years which maybe the cause for the witnesses to turn hostile. 16. The fact remains that the material witnesses, namely, P.W.2, who was saidto have handed over the trap money to the petitioner and P.W.3-shadow witnesshave turned hostile. Therefore, the petitioner is having valid grounds in this appealthat can be considered only during the final hearing. Since the appeal could not be9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025taken up immediately, this Court is inclined to allow this petition. 17. Accordingly, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspendedpending disposal of the criminal appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlargedon bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the the learned SpecialJudge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District and on furthercondition that the petitioner shall appear before the said Court daily at 10.30 a.m.until further orders.18. However, the conduct of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the trial Court cannot beignored. Therefore, this Court is inclined to call for an explanation from the learnedSpecial Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, whoconducted the trial in Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2014, as to how the accused was permitted tocross examine those witnesses after a period of three years, when they wereexamined in chief on 17.12.2015 and on 20.07.2016 respectively. In this regard, theRegistry is directed to call for an explanation from the learned Special Judge/ChiefJudicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari and place the same before this Courton 30.04.2025.19. The case in Crime No.7 of 2013 has been registered as against the petitionerat the instance of P.W.2, who is a CD shop owner. He lodged a written complaint as10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025if the petitioner has demanded a monthly mamool of Rs.50,000/-, based on which, atrap was arranged in the year 2013 and the petitioner was arrested and prosecuted.After the trial, the petitioner was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as statedabove. In view of the Judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner wasdismissed from service. P.W.2/defacto complainant, who stated about the case of theprosecution in chief examination on 17.12.2015, turned hostile on 27.06.2019, whichcannot be ignored just like that. Therefore, the respondent/Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department is directed to initiate prosecution as against P.W.2. 20. P.W.3 is an official witness, who was working as Junior Engineer in theAgricultural Department. He was invited to be an official witness in the trap whichwas conducted on 28.06.2013. He also accompanied P.W.2 at the time of occurrence.In his chief examination, he stated about the prosecution before the trial Court on20.07.2016, however, in his cross examination, he turned hostile on 03.10.2019 afterhis retirement. Therefore, the conduct of P.W.3 cannot be appreciated. Prosecutionwas laid as against the petitioner, who was working as Inspector of Police and he wasdismissed from service on the evidence of P.W.2 and a trap was made as aginst him.An official witness, who stood as a shadow witness, questioned the system by givingevidence supporting the prosecution on 20.07.2016 and thereafter, contrary evidenceon 03.10.2019, after his retirement, needs to be addressed. Therefore, The11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025respondent/Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department is directed to initiateprosecution as against P.W.3 along with P.W.2. 21. Post this matter on 30.04.2025 for compliance of the above directions. sd/- 03/04/2025 / TRUE COPY / 07/04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. OGYTO1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE / CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.2 THE SUPERINTENDENT,CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI.3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION WING,NAGERKOIL,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.R.SHANKAR GANESH, Advocate ( SR-3854[I] dated 03/04/2025 )12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025 ORDER IN Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1973 of 2025in Crl.A.(MD)No.202 of 2025 Date :03/04/2025 SS/SAR. /07.04.2025/13P/6CMadurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 13/13