IN CRL.A. 803 OF 2015 - MADR HC- When the prosecution’s evidence lacks proof beyond doubt and suffers material contradiction, the conviction on presumption has to be set aside: Madras High Court while setting aside conviction of public servant for demanding & accepting Rs1500 bribe
Justice G. Jayachandran [05-07-2023]

Read More: Jayaram v. State

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 6, 2023: The Madras High Court has allowed the appeal filed by a public servant, a Village Administrative Officerin Tamil Nadu’s Krishnagiri District, who was found guilty of demanding and accepting Rs.1500/- as illegal gratification for recommending patta transfer and survey of land and building.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran stated that the hastiness of the Trap Laying Officer registering the complaint and proceeding with the trap had to be taken note of. Whether before registering the complaint, the Trap Laying Officer had made any preliminary enquiry about the credential of the complainant as well as the accused was not brought forth, the Bench observed.

The High Court noted that it was an admitted fact that the defacto complainant did not inform him that, his application for transfer of patta was rejected on 08.08.2005. The Trap Laying Officer had deposed that, for getting the assistance of P.W.3 Murugan, he had made a written request to Ex.Engineer, Highways Department to spare an Officer to assist the Trap. “There is no such letter marked, to prove that, PW3 was present in the Vigilance Office on the written request by the Trap Laying Officer. To believe that, he was present at the time of trap and had seen the accused demanding bribe and receipt of bribe money, no evidence except the oral evidence of the Trap Laying Officer PW11.”

The High Court was of the view that the contradiction with PW2 Tr.R.Annamalai regarding recovery of tainted moneycreated doubt about the case of the prosecution which got enhanced by the fact that the accused had already rejected the application of the defacto complainant two months earlier and the file was not with him for any consideration. Also the accused had probablised his defence of fixing him in this case by suggesting that the defacto complainant had ill-motive against him for not giving conduct certificate and also rejected his application for grant of patta. “When the prosecution evidence lack proof beyond doubt and suffers material contradiction, the conviction on presumption has to be set aside.”

In the matter at hand, the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 27.11.2015 convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I) and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which had to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 1 month for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act) and to undergo one year R.I and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of which had to undergo SO for 6 months for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. The substantive sentences for both offences were ordered to run concurrently.

The Prosecution Witness 2 (PW2) stated that the accused had repeatedly demanded bribe and after complaint, during the trap proceedings on 06.10.2005, when he went to the office of the accused, they were few more persons in the office. The accused asked others to go out and received the money from him. PW 3 Murugan was the shadow witness who was sent by PW11 (Trap Laying Officer) to oversee the transaction. He corroborates the evidence of PW2 to this extent.

Contrarily the documentary evidence indicated that, the accused had rejected the request of the complainant for grant of patta and the file was not with him. Therefore, the Court was of the view that the alleged demand on 05.10.2005 was unbelievable since on that day, the accused had no control over the file or on decision since he had already rejected it and returned it to Taluk Office.

In view thereof , the conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, was set aside and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal was allowed.