Madras High Court · 2025

CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018and he collected all the documents and final report was filed before the Special Court. 3.The learned Special Judge took the same on file in Spl.C.C.No.70 of 2011. The learned Special Judge framed the necessary charges. After framing of charges, the learned Special Judge questioned the appellant and he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood trial.4.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W14 and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and marked M.O1 to M.O5. The learned trial Judge questioned the appellant by putting the incriminating materials available against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and documents under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied the same as false and filed a written explanation and examined DW1 on his side and marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. The learned trial Judge after considering entire evidence on record convicted the appellant as stated above, vide impugned judgment. 5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the amount was handed over to the appellant is not correct. Due to the motive between one of the village assistant, namely, Pandi, a false case was Page No. 5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018registered. P.W.2 was the member of a political party. Due to the vengeance, Pandi and P.W.2 conspired together and made a false compliant and thrust the trap amount in the pocket of the deceased accused and the same was probablised through the circumstances of the case and the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel also submitted that the involvement of the appellant was not proved in accordance with law and also the acceptance of the money was not proved through legal evidence. Without any evidence to the foundation facts, namely, demand and acceptance the presumption under Section 20 of the Act, does not arise. The learned counsel also argued that the defence witness D.W.1 was examined to show the topography of the appellant place which was not in consonance with the evidence of the Trap Laying Officer, P.W.12, P.W.2 and P.W.3. The same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. He also submitted that the defence witness also was not given due importance. The learned counsel also submitted that now the appellant has died and his wife is prosecuting the appeal. Without obtaining any pensionary benefit, her entire family has ruined and in view of the above inherent improbability, she seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against him.Page No. 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 20186. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on instructions and on going through the impugned judgment and the records submitted that the demand and acceptance was clearly proved through the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.14. Apart from the evidence of P.W.12/TLO. The same was properly considered by the learned trial Judge and proper conviction was passed against the deceased appellant. The appellant in 313 Cr.P.C., proceeding gave a detailed submission, in which he admitted that the meeting of the complainant/P.W.2 on 25.01.2010 as mentioned by the prosecution. His only defence is that the amount was thrust in his shirt pocket by P.W.2 with active collusion with one Pandi, Village Assistant. The Village Assistance had consumed liquor in the appellant's office and the same was questioned by him and threatened to take action against him. Hence, Pandi got annoyed. Therefore he and P.W.2 joined together and enacted a drama about the receipt of the bribe amount. The said defence is not correct. According to the prosecution, there was no record was produced by the defence to show that the relationship between Pandi and P.W.2. The evidence of an independent official witness P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W. 14, who are the immediate superior of the deceased appellant correctly deposed about the recovery of the bribe amount from the pocket of the deceased appellant and their evidence are cogent and trustworthy. Page No. 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed against him. 7.This court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record and the precedents relied upon by them.8. The question that arises in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the deceased appellant to substantiate the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge?9. P.W.2 submitted the application to the deceased appellant on 22.01.2010 to obtain marriage benefit fund to his sister's marriage proposed to be held on 27.01.2010. As per the Moovalur Ramamirtham Ammaiyar Memorial Scheme, amount of Rs.20,000/- was given to the destitute women. When he submitted the application, the deceased appellant made a demand of Rs.1,500/- and also demanded Rs.100/- as advance. P.W.2 further deposed that on 25.01.2010 he gave the complaint Page No. 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018about the demand of Rs.1,400/- for issuing the nativity certificate and other necessary certificate to claim the amount under the said scheme to obtain the marriage relief fund. On 25.01.2010, he met the appellant/deceased. The appellant reiterated the demand and received the bribe amount. P.W.3 also corroboratively deposed about the said occurrence of the reiteration of demand on 25.01.2010. P.W.2 and P.W.3 clearly deposed about the reiteration of demand on 25.01.2010. Apart from that P.W.2 cogently deposed about the demand made on 22.01.2010. 10.Therefore, the demand was properly proved through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have cogently deposed and their evidence are trustworthy about the demand of money. The amount was accepted by the deceased appellant and the same was clearly deposed by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the recovery was made in the presence of P.W.4, immediate superior of the deceased/appellant. P.W.14, another official witness, also has clearly deposed about the recovery of amount from the pocket of the deceased appellant. The evidence of independent witness namely, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.14 are clear that the recovery was made from the pocket of the appellant. The theory of thrusting the amount in the pocket and the same found scattered in the ground and at that time, the Page No. 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018Vigilance Officer came and caught the accused is unbelievable defence. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.14 deposed about the recovery of the amount in the pocket of the appellant on his disclosure. Apart from that, the positive result of the phenolphthalein test in the hands of the appellant and also the shirt pocket of the appellant clearly proved that the amount was received by the appellant and the same was kept by him in his pocket. 11. D.W.1 was examined to demonstrate the topography of the occurrence place. Through demonstration of topography, the appellant wanted to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.14 and P.W.10.Ex.P.2 was marked to prove topography. But, his evidence does not inspire confidence of this Court on the following version:-v.rh.M.2 KGikahd tiuglk; ,y;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. ,e;j tiuglj;jpy; tha;fhYf;nfh kw;w ,lq;fSf;nfh FwpaPLfs; nghl;L ehd; thq;;ftpy;iy vd;why; rhpjhd;. vq;fs; mYtyf g[y tiuglj;jpy; me;j tptuq;fs; ,y;iy. g[y vz; 19 tha;f;fhy; ,y;iy vd;gjhy; jhd; 1990-ny mjw;fhd FwpaPL g[y tiuglj;jpy; ,y;iy vd;why; mJ gw;wp vdf;F bjhpahJ. 12. That apart, P.W.3, the official witness has no motive to depose against the appellant. When the evidence of P.W.3 is clear about the Page No. 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018demand and acceptance, the same has to be accepted. Mere irrelevant, minor discrepancies relating to topography of the occurrence place is not a ground to eschew he evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. 13. Apart from that, file relating to P.W.2 also was recovered from the appellant. Further more, in the proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he admitted the meeting with P.W.2 on the date of the occurrence at the relevant point of time and his only defence is that the amount was thrust in his pocket. Therefore, the presence of the appellant on the date of the occurrence and meeting with P.W.2 is clearly proved through the cogent and trustworthy evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and also the admission made by the appellant/deceased in the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The only defence of thrusting is not believable as discussed earlier.14.Therefore, this Court finds that the prosecution clearly proved the demand and acceptance and the acceptance of the bribe amount beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.12 and P.W.14. The defence witness was examined on the side of the appellant to show the topography of the occurrence place. The topography is immaterial in this case, when the evidence of independent witness Page No. 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018namely the immediate superior P.W.4 and the official witnesses P.W.14 and P.W.3 are cogent in relating to the acceptance of the money and the recovery of the amount. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution clearly proved the charge against the appellant and the conviction and sentence passed against him is confirmed. This Court finds no merit in the appeal. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed against him is liable to be confirmed. In view of the death of the sole appellant during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal is permitted to be continued by his wife. 15.Accordingly this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Court cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in Special Case No.70 of 2010, dated 31.05.2018 is hereby confirmed. 15.05.2025NCC : Yes / NoIndex :Yes / NoInternet :Yes / NosbnPage No. 12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018To1.The larned Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Court -cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madurai3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Page No. 13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.sbn Predelivery Judgment made in CRL.A(MD).No.279 of 2018 15.05.2025Page No. 14/14