Partly allowed

S.Sivakumar v. the Dsp

Madras HC6 Jun 2016CRL MP(MD)/4208/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, per Justice P. Devadass, allowed bail to the appellant, an Assistant Executive Engineer convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court suspended the sentence of imprisonment, noting it would take time to dispose of the appeal and found no indication of flight risk.

What did the court decide?

Appeal bail granted. Sentence of imprisonment suspended. Petitioner to execute bond for Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties and appear monthly.

S.Sivakumar Vs the Dsp — Corruption | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Monday, the Sixth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Dr.Justice P.DEVADASS

¶5

CRL MP(MD) No.4208 of 2016 IN CRL A(MD) No.189 of 2016

¶6

S.SIVAKUMAR ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶7

¶8

STATE THROUGH (THE DSP VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION, (V & AC),RAMANATHAPURAM), FOR THE DSP, V& AC, TIRUNELVELI.

¶9

CRIME NO.1 OF 2006 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the petition filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to Suspend the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/Appellant/Accused in Special Case No.31/2014 dated (*)13.05.2016 on the file of the Learned Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Tirunelveli and enlarge the petitioner/Appellant on bail pending disposal of the above Criminal Appeal.

¶11

Order : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S M.SARAVANAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.P.KANDASAMY Government Advocate for the Respondent while admitting the Criminal Appeal the court made the following order:-

¶12

The sole accused in the Special C.C.No.31 of 2014 on the file of Special Court under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli while challenging his conviction and sentence, seeks appeal bail under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C.

¶13

2.The appellant/petitioner is employed as Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO. He is alleged to have demanded Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification from P.W.2 to change the tariff. A trap was laid. It became successful. Based on the oral, documentary and scientific evidence adduced, the trial Court found the charges proved.

¶14

3.The learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced him as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under:

¶15

	Section	P	unishment
7 of Pre	vention of	Corruption 3 years R.I.	plus fine Rs.5,000/-
Act, 1988		i/d 5 months	SI
13(2) r/w	13(1)(d) of	Prevention 3 years R.I.	plus fine Rs.5,000/-
of Corrupt	ion Act, 1988	i/d 5 months	SI

¶16

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He has paid the fine amount.

¶17

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubts. Demand as well as acceptance were not proved. P.W.2 is not consistent in his chief and cross examination. He has shifted the place of occurrence. He had stated that at the relevant time he had spotted the accused near the Vigilance and Anticorruption Office at Palayamkottai, however the place of occurrence is Puliankudi. As between there is vast distance. The witness examined to speak about his witnessing the trap operation is also not consistent. Prosecution case suffers from several inherent improbabilities.

¶18

5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) would submit that based on the clear cut evidence of P.W.2 and other official witnesses the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted and appropriately sentenced the petitioner.

¶19

6.I have anxiously considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and also referred to the relevant evidence. I have also perused the grounds of appeal. I see certain eminently arguable points are involved in this Criminal Appeal. Further, it will take some time for the disposal of this criminal appeal. Further, he was on bail in the trial Court. Further, there is no allegation that he will abscond or flee away from justice. I see prima-facie case in his favour. Thus, I am inclined to grant him appeal bail.

¶20

7.Ordered as under:

¶21

(1) Appeal bail granted.

¶22

(2) His sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended.

¶23

(3) There shall be two sureties, they and the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act at Tirunelveli.

¶24

(4) The petitioner shall appear before the said Court on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶25

sd/-

¶26

06/06/2016

¶27

(*)Amended as per order of this Hon'ble High Court made in Crl.MP.No.4469/2016 vide order dated 09.06.2016 by P.D.S.J.

¶28

/ TRUE COPY /

¶29

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶30

sj TO

¶31

1.THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT UNDER PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, @ TIRUNELVELI.

¶32

2.THE GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRL. SIDE), MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶33

3.(THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION, (V & AC),RAMANATHAPURAM), FOR THE Deputy Superintendent of Police, VIGILANCE AND ANTICORRUPTION, TIRUNELVELI.

¶34

+1. C.C. to M/S M.SARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.29118

¶35

GJM/ARK/DV/SAR-I-7.6.16-3P-5C

¶36

ORDER IN CRL MP(MD) No.4208 of 2016 IN CRL A(MD) No.189 of 2016 Date :06/06/2016

¶37

PA/GSV-PM/SAR I/09.06.2016/3P/5C (IT)

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Sivakumar v. the Dsp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivakumar v. the Dsp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.Krishnamurthy Vs the Inspector of Police

B.Thirumathy @ Moorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

S. Narayanamoorthy Vs the Inspector of Police

V.Udhayakumar Vs the Director

P. Venkateswarlu Vs the Inspector of Police

Yunish Vs the Inspector of Police