The High Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition challenging the trial court's order refusing a summons for specific documents. The Court held the trial court was correct in deeming the documents irrelevant as the case concerned the demand for an additional deposit.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
CRL.O.P.No.7652 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.No.5080 of 2021
Pandian
S/O.T.K.Chinnasamay,
Junior Engineer 1st Grade,
TNEB, Nethimedu Rural (O & M),
Salem District, ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State,
By Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-corruption,
(CR.No.4/AC/2007/SL))
Salem. ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to
the order dated 09.12.2020 made in Crl.M.P.No.101 of 2020 in
Spl.C.C.No.66 of 2014 on the file of the Special Judge (Special
Court for Trail of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act)
Salem and set aside the same.
For Petitioner: Mr.M.Devaraj
For Respondent: Mr.E.Raj Thilak
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for
the records relating to the order dated 09.12.2020 made in
Crl.M.P.No.101 of 2020 in Spl.C.C.No.66 of 2014 on the file of
the Special Judge (Special Court for Trail of Cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem and set aside the same.
2. The petitioner herein is facing a trial for the offence
under Sections 7 and 13 (2) R/W 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988, before the Special Judge (Special Court
for Trail of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act)
Salem.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had
demanded from the complainant to pay Rs.17,000/- for giving
electricity connection to the Rice Mill of the defacto
complainant. As per the allegation made in the complaint, the
complainant S.Venkatachalam had constructed a new rice mill in
the residential campus at D.No.4/337 and applied for the service
connection in the 1st week of February 2007 seeking 25 HP. On the
next day at 4 pm, the petitioner had been to the residence of
the defacto complainant along with wireman for taking
measurement for the erection of post and had demanded
Rs.17,000/- as illegal gratification and informed the
complainant to pay the deposit amount separately. On 06.02.2007,
when the complainant met the petitioner in his office and
remitted Rs.12,050/-, the petitioner is alleged to have
reiterated his demand, for which, the complainant expressed his
inability. On the same day, the petitioner alleged to have gone
to the house of the complaint at 5.30 pm and informed that the
estimate was ready and reiterated the demand of Rs.17,000/-. On
14.02.2007, the defacto complainant met the petitioner in his
office at 2.30 pm and was informed by the petitioner that the
estimate was ready and if the amount was paid, the same would be
forwarded to the higher authorities. On 16.02.2007, the
complainant had been to the electricity board office to make
entry in the fuse called register in respect of SC.No.98 in the
name of his father, during which time also the petitioner has
reiterated his earlier demand and instructed the complainant to
pay the same before 19.02.2007. On 19.02.2007 at 11 am, the
defacto complainant had been to the office and since the
petitioner was on leave contacted through the mobile, who
informed that the complainant could meet the petitioner on
20.02.2007 at 11.30 am. On 20.02.2007, the complainant met the
petitioner in his office and handed over Rs.10,000/- towards the
gratification, which was received by the petitioner for
effecting service connection and accordingly the petitioner was
arrested.
4. It is averred in the affidavit that the prosecution has
examined PW1 to PW20 and the prosecution side evidence was
closed on 20.11.2019. The petitioner was examined under Section
313 of Crl.P.C on 31.12.2019 and the case was adjourned for
defence side witnesses on 08.01.2020. On 08.01.2020, the
petitioner had filed a petition under Section 243 r/w 311 of
Crl.P.C to issue summon to the witnesses, to produce documents
and to tender evidence, but the same was dismissed on
09.12.2020.
5. It is also averred in the affidavit that the petitioner
had filed the above petition to summon the Zonal Commissioner of
Kondalampatty Municipal Corporation and to produce the
Assessment details for the property at Door No.4/337, Kamaraj
Nagar for the year 2004 to 2009, details of the tax assessment
in respect of the defacto complainant for the said period and
the tax assessment in the name of the defacto complainant for
the year 2007 and the documents relating to Kondalampatty Ward
No.50, Door No.456 and 4/337A, Annadhanapatty, Block No.4, Subbu
Gounder Assessment No.164785 and the other details. The defacto
complainant had misused the tax receipt issued in respect of the
property belonging to his father to show that it is an existing
rice mill for which additional load is to be supplied, but the
fact that the same is a new building for which the petitioner
will have to pay additional deposit and not the earlier deposit
made and as such the acceptance of Rs.10,000/- is for the
additional deposit and not a bribe money. This aspect can be
proved only by production of the tax receipts and the tax
details along with the approved plan. But the Trial Court has
erroneously dismissed his petition based on the contention
raised by the prosecution that the present case is in respect of
deciding the demand and acceptance of bribe and not deciding the
title of the premises in question where the service connection
is to be effected.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent,
wherein, it is stated that it is false to allege that PW2
Tr.Venkatachalam misused the house tax assessment receipt which
stood in the name of his father in getting the EB service
connection from the petitioner / accused. PW2 was examined in
chief on 16.12.2015 and Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 were marked and M.O.1 was
also marked and he was cross examined by the defence on
20.01.2016 and 11.02.2016. PW2 categorically stated in his chief
as well as in the cross examination that he presented the
application Ex.P2 mentioning the D.No. for which the service
connection number is 4/337 and he enclosed the receipt which was
mentioned as 4/337-A. PW2, during the cross examination, clearly
deposed that the D.No.4/337 was his residential house and
D.No.4/337-A is a Rice Mill for which he claimed the new service
connection and he has enclosed the sale deed and also the
Lincense obtained from the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial
Development Corporation. Further, when PW2 was questioned
regarding the Tax Receipt for D.No.4/337-A and corrections made
by the officials, it was clearly explained by him in his
evidence during the cross examination on 20.01.2016. It is
further equally false to allege that the defacto complainant PW2
enclosed the receipt of the Kondalampatti Zone in Annathanapatti
Zone and claimed the service connection. It is further false to
allege that the petitioner / accused to falsify the prosecution
case, summoned the building approval for rice mill and also
claimed that the money demanded is only an additional deposit
amount to be paid by the PW2 Tr.Venkatachalam. It is further
submitted that PW2, during the cross examination, categorically
stated that he has not obtained any building approval in
constructing the rice mill and not even a suggestion was put to
PW2 that the amount demanded was an additional deposit amount to
be paid by PW2. It is submitted that PW10 Tr.Ponnuvel, the then
Assistant Engineer has categorically deposed that the
application of PW2 was registered in the Application Register in
Page 57 in SL.No.12 on 06.02.2007 by the accused petitioner and
Rs.50/- was application fee and Rs.12,000/- towards deposit
amount were fixed and the corresponding entries were marked as
Ex.P14. There is not even a suggestion put to PW10 regarding the
additional deposit amount as claimed by the petitioner /
accused. It is an invented story by the defence to escape from
the prosecution case and not supported by any documentary
evidence.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials
available on record.
8. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the
complainant namely Venkatachalam had constructed a New Rice Mill
in the residential campus at D.No.4/337 and applied for
electricity connection, for which, the petitioner had demanded
Rs.17,000/- from the complainant apart from the amount he
remitted towards electricity connection. The complainant had
expressed his inability to pay the excess amount claimed by the
petitioner, but the petitioner had insisted him to pay the said
amount. Hence, a complaint has been lodged against him.
9. It is also seen from the records that the respondent
police, after investigating the matter, filed a charge sheet
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem and the same was
taken on file in Spl.C.C.No.133 of 2007. Subsequently, the case
was transferred to Special Judge (Special Court for Trail of
Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act) Salem and
renumbered as Spl.C.C.No.66 of 2014. The prosecution side
evidence was opened on 16.05.2014, and after examining PW1 to
PW20, the prosecution side evidence was closed on 20.11.2019 and
the petitioner / accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
on 31.12.2019. Thereafter, the case was posted for defence
witness on 08.01.2020. On 08.01.2020, the petitioner had filed
the petition under Section 243 r/w 311 of Cr.P.C and under
Section 22 of PC Act, to issue summon to the witnesses, to
produce documents and to tender evidence.
10. The petitioner / accused has claimed before the Court
below that the house tax receipt enclosed with the application
is a tampered document, which relates to a property situated in
another area. Hence, summoning the Assessment Officer of
Kondalampatty Zonal Municipal Corporation is very essential to
disprove the prosecution case and to prove the facts.
11. On the side of the respondent / prosecution, it was
claimed that the petitioner called upon the records and
assessment register for D.No.456, 4/337-A or 4/337. The D.No.456
is not relevant to this case and PW2 Venkatachalam deposed in
his evidence that he claimed service connection for D.No.4/337-A
and there is no document produced by the petitioner to show that
the assessment stands in any other person other than the
complainant (PW2). The petitioner has filed this application to
call for, the assessment register, tax receipt issued in the
name of the father of the complainant and details of tax
collection, for the period 2004 to 2009, plan approval and tax
receipt for the rice mill for the year 2007 and 2008 along with
relevant documents. But the Court is not deciding the title of
the complainant in this case and the present case is in respect
of deciding the demand and acceptance of bribe for effecting
service connection for the proposed rice mill.
12. On going through the order passed by the Court below,
this Court observes that though it was contended by the
petitioner that the complainant misused the tax receipt issued
in respect of the property belonging to his father, no document
has been produced by the petitioner to prove the same. When the
petitioner specifically states that the complainant fabricated
the records and remitted only part of the deposit amount for
effecting service connection to the proposed rice mill, he ought
to have produced necessary document before the Court below to
prove the same. But, no such document has been produced by the
petitioner. As contended by the learned counsel for the
respondent / prosecution, the documents sought for the
petitioner to be produced before the Court are irrelevant to the
facts of this case as the present case is filed only to decide
the additional deposit amount claimed by the petitioner and not
to decide the title of the complainant. It is an admitted fact
that the petitioner had claimed additional deposit amount from
the complainant for giving electricity connection to the
proposed rice mill. While being so, it is for the petitioner to
prove his case by producing proper evidence before the Court
below and he cannot insist the court to issue summon to the
persons who are not relevant to the issue of this case. The
Trial Court has carefully considered the case of the petitioner
and rightly dismissed his petition based on the contention
raised by the respondent / prosecution that the documents
claimed by the petitioner will no way useful for the petitioner
to defend his case, and this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the same.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
raja
To
1.The Special Judge,
(Special Court for Trail of Cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act)
Salem.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption,
Salem.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras-104.
Copy To:
The Section Officer,
Criminal Section, High Court,
Madras-104.
+1cc to M/s.M.Devaraj, Advocate, S.R.No.54411
CRL.O.P.No.7652 of 2021
and
CRL.M.P.No.5080 of 2021
SSV(CO)
SB(02/11/2021)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to summon the Assessment Officer to prove the complainant misused a tax receipt for a new rice mill.
Whether documents sought by the petitioner to establish the nature of the property were relevant to the charge of bribery.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Pandian
The State
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court