1. The sole accused in Special Case No.22 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases, Madurai, filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. By the said judgment, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The appellant is said to have demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- from P.W.2 on various dates, namely 03.07.2008 and 09.07.2008 to give adangal and accepted the said bribe amount on 11.07.2008 and issued the adangal. Thereafter, the said bribe amount was recovered by P.W.13/Trap Laying Officer of the Vigilance Department in the presence of P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.8 after registering case in Crime No.05 of 2008 for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the appellant and a final report was filed by the Investigating Officer/P.W.14, before the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. The same was taken on file in Special Case No.22 of 2011.

3. After appearance of the accused, the copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same were read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded 'not guilty' and stood for trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and exhibited 24 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and marked four material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.4. On the side of the appellant, 2 witness were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and exhibited 1 document as Ex.D1.

5. The learned trial Judge, after completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, questioned the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence, which was denied by the appellant. In the said circumstances, the learned trial judge, after considering the entire evidence, convicted the appellant not accepting his explanation, sentenced the appellant by passing the impugned order, as stated above. Challenging the same, he filed the present appeal before this court.

6. Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

6.1. By reading the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also through the documents filed by the prosecution and the questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it is seen that the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.13 and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. The evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by the evidence of remaining witnesses. In the material particulars, the evidence of P.W.3 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.4 is also not corroborated by the evidences of P.W.2 and P.W.3. Apart from that, there is no material to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant due to the death of the material official witness. The evidence of P.W.2 is to be considered with caution as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar and another vs. State of Madras reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13. The evidence of P.W.2 comes under the category of neither reliable nor unreliable. Therefore, his evidence is to be disbelieved by considering his personal grudge over the conduct of the appellant that he did not agree for granting patta in respect of the land in question and he also favoured the rival group in granting patta.

6.2. The learned counsel for the appellant further brought to the notice of this Court that the particular omission on the part of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and the contradiction relating to the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and also the non corroborative evidence of P.W.5 makes the case of prosecution doubtful. According to the learned counsel, he submitted that each witness spoke about the particular fact and those facts are not connected in chain and hence, the demand and acceptance has not been proved. Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.

6.3. Apart from that, the learned trial Judge has not considered the defence of the appellant and the material circumstances elicited by the appellant during their cross examination and supported with the evidence of defence witnesses D.W1 and D.W.2 and the defence documents Ex.D1 and Ex.D2.

6.4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there was a huge crowd in the said office. Therefore, the alleged demand and acceptance in the said situation is improbable, and hence, the defence of the appellant that P.W.2 had planted the money in the drawer is more probable, considering the motive imputed against P.W.2.

6.5. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the charge was only relating to the demand and acceptance from P.W.2 and there was no charge relating to the receipt of the bribe amount from one Jeyakumar.

7. The learned Additional public prosecutor made the following submissions:

7.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that first demand is proved through the evidence of P.W.5 on 03.07.2008 and the second demand is proved through the evidence of P.W.4/Jeyakumar and the presence of P.W.4 and P.W.2 on 09.07.2008 is further proved through the evidence of the Village Assistant/P.W.6 and P.W.8 during their visit to the lands of P.W.2 and P.W.4 and apart from that, the appellant himself admitted the said fact during the questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hence, the demand on the said date, i.e. 09.07.2008 is proved through the further course of the action on 11.07.2008 by the evidence of P.W.4, who clearly deposed about the receipt of the amount of Rs.500/- from him by the appellant to issue adangal to him. The above circumstances, apart from the evidence of P.W. 2, clearly prove the case of demand and acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount. The recovery of the bribe amount is clearly proved through the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.8, P.W.13 and P.W.3. Even though one of the official witnesses died, the other official witness was examined to prove the recovery of amount and also the subsequent facts and also the preparation of the recovery mahazar and to support the complainant's version. Hence, the prosecution clearly proved the case.

7.2. He would further submit that so far as witness Jayakumar is concerned, separate proceedings was initiated under Civil Service Rules and the same is pending before the Tribunal constituted for deciding the said act. Considering the said submission, this Court found that as per the vigilance manual, it is the prerogative of the investigating officer either to continue the prosecution before the Court or the Tamil Nadu Civil Service DPT Rules 1955. Regarding the case of Jayakumar, without prosecuting the appellant before Court of law initiated prosecuting the appellant before Court of law initiated proceedings before Tribunal, but the relevant fact of the receipt of the bribe amount from Jayakumar was considered by the Court below and this Court also is to accept the evidence of P.W.4/Jayakumar to corroborate the version of P.W.2 and also the other material circumstances to prove the demand made by the appellant on 09.07.2008.

8. 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.

9. The appellant was the Village Administrative Officer of Nadumuthalaikulam. He was also in-charge of Panniyan Village, Kullaneri Village and Kannanur Village. P.W.2 had a land in the Kannanur Village. P.W.2 approached the appellant on 02.08.2008, to get adangal copy for obtaining loan. The appellant asked P.W.2 to come on 03.07.2008. On the said day, when P.W.2 met the appellant, he demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to issue copy of adangal. The same has also been reiterated by the appellant on 09.07.2008. On 03.07.2008, the demand was made in the presence of P.W.2's relative P.W.5. On 09.07.2008, the said demand was also made in the presence of P.W.4/Jayakumar. On 09.07.2008, he also demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to issue adangal copy to P.W. 4/Jayakumar also. On 09.07.2008, the appellant visited the lands of both P.W.2 and P.W.4 and thereafter, he demanded to give a sum of Rs.1,000/- and instructed to come to the office with Rs.1,000/- on the following day. Therefore, on 10.07.2008, P.W.2 approached P.W.13/Inspector of Police attached with the respondent Vigilance Department and gave a complaint/Ex.P2. After obtaining the complaint, upon verification, he registered the case under Ex.P21/FIR for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, he called the witnesses, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and Ravi Chandran and Sivaraj to the respondent's Vigilance Office and introduced to the appellant and he demonstrated the Phenolphthalein Test to P.W.2 and prepared entrustment mahazar upon noting the numbers of the notes in the entrustment mahazar and instructed to give bribe amount, if the appellant reiterated the demand to issue adangal. P.W.4 was instructed to watch the proceedings happening between the complainant and P.W.2. P.W.2 approached the appellant and Sivaraj accompanied him. P.W.4/Jayakumar was also present in the office of the appellant and the appellant received a sum of Rs. 500/- from him and issued adangal. The appellant reiterated the said demand from P.W.2 of Rs.1,000/- to give adangal copy and upon receipt of the said amount, he issued adangal copy and the same was witnessed by Sivaraj (the said Sivaraj died during the pendency of the trial). Thereafter, P.W.2 gave signal and the same was seen by P.W.13 and thereafter, the amount was recovered from the appellant in the presence of P.W.3. P.W.3 has clearly deposed about the recovery of the amount on the disclosure of the appellant and the same was corroborated by P.W.13's evidence. All the proceedings form part of the contemporaneous record, namely, recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P4. P.W.4 also gave a statement that the appellant, before receiving the bribe amount from P.W.2, had received the bribe amount from Jayakumar also and issued adangal. The said issuance of adangal to both P.W.2 and P.W.4 is admitted by the Village Assistant, namely, P.W.6 and P.W.8. P.W.6 and P.W.8 also affirmed the recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant. The learned counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3. P.W.3's deposition that the presence of P.W.4/Jayakumar in the office is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 never deposed about his presence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, this is a material contradiction. This Court is unable to accept the said contention for the reason that P.W.4 only knew about P.W.2 and it is not within his knowledge that P.W.3 belonged to the trap team. The evidence of P.W.3 is that when he and the deceased/Sivaraj entered into the Village Administrative Office, P.W.4 came out from the said office and he stated that the appellant had received a sum of Rs.500/- from him. Both the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are that P.W.4 disclosed the fact of receipt of Rs.500/- by the appellant to issue adangal to him. Therefore, the presence of both P.W.2 and P.W.4 is proved by the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.8. There is no dispute over the said fact. Therefore, the said omission is not a material one to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.2 that they paid the bribe amount to the appellant.

10. The learned counsel further submitted that there is a material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4. P.W.2 never disclosed about the presence of P.W.5/Ulagaraja on 09.07.2008 in the Village Administrative Office. According to P.W. 4, the presence of P.W.5 was never disclosed. Therefore, there is a contradiction. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.07.2008, when P.W.2 and P.W.4 met the appellant in his office, he demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- to issue adangal copy and asked them to arrange to visit their land. Therefore, they arranged an auto, in which, both the appellant, P.W.2, P.W.4, P.W.6 and P.W.8 travelled and went to the lands of both P.W.2 and P.W.4 situated in different places, namely, Panniyan Village and Kannanoor Village. The same was also not disputed by the appellant. Therefore, the meeting of the P.W.2 and P.W.4 with the appellant on the day is established through the evidence. Hence, the said contradiction has not affected the prosecution's case of the demand made on 09.07.2008.

11. From the above discussion, the prosecution clearly proved the demand made on 03.07.2008 through the evidence of P.W.2 and it was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5. The further demand on 09.07.2008 is proved through the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.2. P.W.2 corroborated P.W.4 and the reiteration of demanded amount on the date of the trap on 11.07.2008 also is proved through the material circumstances, namely, the receipt of the bribe amount from P.W.4to issue adangal. Even though the accompanying official witness Sivaraj died during the course of the trial, the evidence of P.W.2 is cogent and trustworthy without any infirmity and material lapse in his evidence.

12. Apart from that, it is the specific case the appellant that he received the adangal. The recovery of the amount is clearly proved through the evidence of the witness namely P.W.3/Ravichandran. P.W.3 and the trap laying officer clearly deposed about the recovery of the amount. In this case prior to the recovery of amount the demand was proved through the cogent and trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses. The explanation of the appellant during the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is as follows:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

13. In the said explanation, it is stated P.W.2 and his family members got annoyed and they had motive for the reason that he facilitated his rival to get patta in the Government land and the appellant himself voluntarily gave the amount and he has not demanded any amount of bribe. To prove the said motive, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, it is true that P.W.2 and his family member had a claim over the Government land, which was in their long possession for a long time. But the same was allotted to the rival claimant of P.W.2 and the same happened long before the incident. The specific case of P.W.2 is that he approached P.W.2 to give adangal to a separate land and for that purpose, he made a visit to the said land. Therefore, the said alleged motive has no relevance to decide the present case of the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. The said submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor deserves to be accepted for the reason that the said alleged events took place long before the present occurrence and the said event was entirely a different transaction. Now, the present requirement of P.W.2 is that to get the loan he wanted the adangal copy. To give the said adangal copy, the accused demanded money. Therefore, the said motive was projected by the appellant since he had the habit of receiving the bribe amount from various parties, as a ready made defence. The said finding of the Court supports the demand made from P.W.4 for issuing the adangal copy. Therefore, the said explanation is artificial one and calculated defence and therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said defence.

14. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, reported in (1998) 1 SCC 557 has held as follows: 

"6. The complainant's evidence was jettisoned on the mere ground that since he had a grouse against the delinquent public servant he might falsely have implicated the latter. Such a premise is fraught with the consequence that no bribe-giver can get away from such a stigma in any graft case. No doubt PW 5 would have been aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent. The very fact that he lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau is reflective of his grievance. Such a handicap in his evidence may require the Court to scrutinise it with greater care, but it does not call for outright rejection of his evidence at the threshold. A pedantic approach rejecting the evidence of a complainant simply on the premise that he was aggrieved against the bribe-taker, would only help corrupt officials getting insulated from legal consequences."

In the case of State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 254 has held as follows:

"10. It is now time to deal with the criticism urged as a matter of course in the context of the police officer leading the raiding party — namely that he is an interested witness. This is true, but only to an extent — a very limited extent. He is interested in the success of the trap to ensure that a citizen, who complains of harassment by a Government officer making a demand for illegal gratification, is protected and the role of his department in the protection of such citizens is vindicated. Perhaps it can be contended that he is interested in the success of the trap so that his ego is satisfied or that he earns a feather in his cap. At the same time it must be realised that it is not frequently that a police officer, himself being a Government servant, would resort to perjury and concoct evidence in order to rope in an innocent Government servant. In the event of the Government servant concerned refusing to accept the currency notes offered by the complainant, it would not be reasonable to expect the police officer to go to the length of concocting a false seizure memo for prosecuting and humiliating him merely in order to save the face of the complainant, thereby compromising his own conscience. The court may therefore, depending on the circumstances of a case, feel safe in accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When therefore besides such evidence there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the prosecution case. The present case appears to be a case of that nature. If the circumstantial evidence is of such a nature that it affords adequate corroboration to the prosecution case, as held by the learned Special Judge, the appeal must succeed. If on the other hand the circumstantial evidence is considered to be inadequate to buttress the oral testimony, the appeal necessarily must fail.

14. So also it is not possible to believe that all the police officers had from the beginning conspired to rope in the respondent by hook or crook and had carried with them the half complete form which was acquired in a fortuitous manner to the consulting room in order to prepare the fictitious Farad at the time of the raid. It is not possible to believe that nothing had transpired at the raid, and yet, an imagined account of the occurrence and the seizure was incorporated in the Farad with a view to falsely implicate the respondent. The explanation of the respondent as to why the police officers should have falsely implicated the respondent is also not convincing. This is what he says:

“A person by the name of Nathu had died in police lock up Hahi Police Station. In that case Shri R.K. Shukla and other police officials were involved. A vast enquiry was done in that case. The post-mortem of the dead body of Nathu was performed by me. On that day Shri R.N. Pandey met me and pressurised me to give post-mortem report to the effect that no reason could be ascertained of causing death. I told him that whatever will be right and truth I would be giving the same in my report. Shri R.N. Pandey told me that enmity with police is not good. About 18-20 police employees were suspended on my report. That case is still pending against the police officials. I had performed the post-mortem in December 1974, and the revenge of the same was taken during emergency by Shri R.N. Pandey while having league with Dr B.M. Pandey by laying a trap on me. Babu Lal was made a willing stooge.” 15. The incident was a relatively stale one and it is highly improbable that the entire police force would nurse a grievance on this score and wait for such an opportunity. Be it realized that the child of PW 3 was genuinely afflicted with bone T.B. and was a genuine patient at the hospital. The defence version is therefore altogether improbable. The fact that the fingers of the respondent were dipped in the solution and the solution turned into red indicating that the fingers had come in contact with phenolphthalein powder is not disputed by the respondent, but he does not offer any explanation. This is all that he says:

“Q. No. 11: It has come in the evidence that your fingers, pocket of the shirt from which currency notes were recovered were both separately dipped and washed in the solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the solution turned red. Both the solutions were sealed in separate bottles which are Ex. 24 and Ex. 25. What you have to say in this regard

Ans.: I can't say of what contents this solution was prepared. When my fingers were got dipped in that solution the colour of the same turned red. My bush shirt had been made to put off by me. In my presence the pocket of the bush shirt was not dipped in the solution. I don't know whether they had sealed this red solution in bottles or not.” 

14.1. In the case of Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 642 has held as follows:

"10. The courts below considered the facts properly and appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and then reached the conclusion that the charges stood fully proved against the appellants. The explanation furnished by the appellants that they had falsely been enroped due to enmity could not be proved for the reason that no evidence could be brought on record indicating any previous enmity between the complainant and the appellants nor was any evidence available to show that the complainant was not satisfied with the treatment given to his father and he could act with some oblique motive in order to falsely implicate the appellants." 

15. The presence of the motive is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant relating to the demand and acceptance when his evidence is cogent and corroborated with the material circumstances. In this case, apart from the oral evidence of P.W.2, the material circumstances are “the immediate issuance of the adangal”, and immediate recovery of the said Adangal and also P.W.4's evidence that the appellant also demanded and accepted the bribe amount from him. Therefore, the case of the appellant that he never demanded bribe amount cannot be accepted as per the Hon'ble Constitution Bench Judgment.

16. When the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of the amount, then the presumption comes into play under Section 20 of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, and hence, it is the duty of the appellant to disprove the same. Here, except the above said explanation, nothing is adduced. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution clearly proved the case of the demand, acceptance, recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and also the defence raised by the appellant that the amount was planted in the drawer of the appellant is also falsified from the circumstances. Even according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the room was small and the Village Assistant was sitting outside the room and hence, the case of the appellant that he had planted the money in the drawer in the presence of huge crowd is not acceptable. The case of the appellant that there was a huge crowd and P.W.2 planted the money in the drawer of the Village Administrative Officer is unbelievable one and the same is a stage managed defence and hence, this Court is unable to accept the said explanation in the background of positiveresult of hand wash test. The specific explanation give by the appellant that the Trap Laying Officer forced him to take the amount from the drawer is not accepted, in view of the specific evidence of the independent official witness/P.W.3. The said independent witness clearly deposed about the disclosure of the amount by the appellant after conducting the phenolphthalein test. Therefore, in all aspect, this Court is unable to accept the argument of the appellant and hence, the conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is confirmed.

17. The appellant during questioning of sentence before the trial Court has stated:

 "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

18. Considering the said circumstances and also the present the health condition of the appellant, this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year.

19. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:

(i)the conviction passed against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Madurai, dated 27.09.2018, is hereby confirmed.

(ii) the sentence of imprisonment to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sentence of imprisonment to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ;

is modified into

“to undergo 1 year of rigorous imprisonment each for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and the judgment relating to the fine amount is hereby confirmed”. 

(iii)All the substantive sentence of imprisonment are to run concurrently. The period if already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,

(iv) The other conditions imposed in Special Case.No.22 of 2011, by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Madurai vide judgment dated 27.09.2018 shall stand remained unaltered.

(vi) The Bail bond executed by the appellant herein in hereby cancelled and the Court below is hereby directed to take steps to secure the appellant to undergo remaining period of sentence of imprisonment.

20. List this case on 27.06.2025 for “reporting compliance”.