In an appeal seeking to set aside an acquittal in a corruption case, the High Court found basic flaws in the prosecution case, including missing call details and inconsistencies in the trap execution. The Court held that the trial Court's acquittal was not perverse and no interference was required.
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.
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 12.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A. No.811 of 2016
State represented by: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras -600 104. (V & AC., Cuddalore Crime No.3 of 2009) .. Appellant
Vs.
Ms.K.Vijaya
..Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 (1) (b) of Criminal Procedure Code, to allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of acquittal of the accused passed in Special Case No.07/2010 dated 04.05.2016 by the Court of Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore District and convict the respondent/accused as charged.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Senior Counsel for Mr.T.R.Ravi.
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
ORDER
This appeal preferred by the State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
respondent, Sub Inspector of Police demanded one quire paper, pen and Aircel top up card for Rs.100/- and thereafter, asked them to come after one week.
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
accused after conducting the phenolphthalein test and the same was proved positive. After getting sanction to prosecute the accused and the chemical analysis report Investigating Officer filed his final report against this respondent.
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
Government Hospital. To pay the ambulance charge, the accused gave Rs.500/- to him. That was returned to the accused on 27.04.2009.
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
recording the explanation given by the public servant regarding money recovered from her. The said violation is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Referring the testimony of the PW.16/IO that he had not recorded any statement from the accused during the trap and recovery process, in contradiction with the testimony of PW.1 who had categorically stated that he has gone through the statement of the accused before arriving at a conclusion to grant sanction to prosecute and the statement recorded in the seizure mahazar marked as Ex.P5 wherein, a truncated explanation of the accused/respondent been recorded.
the prosecution finds basic flaw in the case of the prosecution. The following are the flaws in the case of the prosecution which goes to the root of the matter.
(i) There is material to show that the accused soon after recovery of money from her possession had
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
given some explanation for receiving the money that explanation not been recorded by the trap laying officer or he had not produced before the Court which was available for the sanctioning authority for his perusal.
(ii) There is a specific averment by PW.2 that the accused been contacting him over phone and demanding money. The said call details not recovered and placed before the Court. The accused has suggested to the witnesses that the phone number which the PW.2 alleges as that of the accused actually belongs to one Srinivasan and he was not examined by the Investigating Officer. From the material placed by the prosecution, this Court could not find what is the phone number used for calling the defacto complainant and when he called. The non recovery or non production of the call details makes the case of the prosecution unbelievable.
(iii) The trap spot initially expected to be the Kurinchipadi Police Station had been shifted to Vadalur Police Station. The Rough Sketch marked as Ex.P7 shows that the spot of trap is inside the Sub Inspector room, Vadalur Police Station whereas the General Diary maintained in the Kurinchipadi Police Station indicates that the petitioner was asked to go for a
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
Highway Patrol Duty on the previous day at 03.00 pm and she was in the highway patrol duty.
(iv) Furthermore, the case of the prosecution is that the demand of illegal gratification was to drop action against Balakrishnan in the case investigated for unnatural death of his daughter Anbukkarasi. The CD file in connection with the case registered for the unnatural death of Anbukkarasi indicates that the action was dropped on 15.04.2009, which is much prior to the date of complaint. The accused, after completing the investigation proceeded under Section 174 of Cr.P.C has submitted a report to the Executive Magistrate on 15.04.2009 itself and the same form part of the General Diary maintained in the station and also relied by the prosecution as Exhibits.
judgment of acquittal need no interference in the appeal since no perversity or illegality observed in the judgment. The view of the trial Court is a view also possible, therefore, this appeal is dismissed.
12.09.2023
Internet : Yes/No Index: Yes/No rkp
Crl.A.No.811 of 2016
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rkp
To
Crl.A. No.811 of 2016
12.09.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial Court's acquittal of the accused in a corruption case due to alleged procedural flaws.
Whether the prosecution's case suffers from basic flaws regarding missing call details and inconsistent trap execution.
Whether the trial Court's view accepting the accused's explanation of the money was a possible view not requiring interference.
State represented by: The Public Prosecutor
Ms.K.Vijaya
Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
