The High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against the acquittal of a Junior Engineer accused of demanding a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court upheld the trial court's finding that no bribe was demanded and noted that the investigation procedures raised credibility issues.
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent upheld.
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.
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 10.12.2024
CORAM : M R.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.A.No.42 of 2021
State by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Special Investigation Cell Chennai ... Appellant
Vs.
K.Gajendran ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of the order of acquittal in S.C.No.11 of 2010 dated 01.11.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, and convict the accused for the charges framed.
For Appellant : Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan for Mr.P.Ezhil Nilavan
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State challenging a judgment acquitting A1 in
Special Case No.11 of 2010, on the file of the learned Special Judge / Chief
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur. A1 along with A2 faced trial for charges U/s.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, pending trial A2 died and trial proceeded against A1.
2.The case of the prosecution is as below:
2/8
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
Ext.P2 - complaint on 23.02.2009, receiving which, P.W.9 laid Ext.P9-
F.I.R. The F.I.R. was registered at about 5.30 p.m. Soon, The trap was planned for 24.02.2009 and P.W.9 began his preparation for pre-trap protocol. P.W.2 and certain C.S.Rajakumar as shadow witnesses.
3/8
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
✔ P.W.10, then took over the investigation, completed it and laid his final report.
3.During trial the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10, produced Ext.P1 to Ext.P13 and marked MO1 to MO3. A1, on his part, examined D.W.1, an official of the TNEB (Stores) and produced Ext.D1 to Ext.D7. On evaluating the evidence, before it, the trial Court found A1 not guilty and acquitted him accordingly.
4.The State has preferred this appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment.
5.The learned Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has chosen to acquit the respondent on two major grounds:
a) that nowhere it is said that A1 had demanded 'bribe'. In other words,
4/8
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
merely because the word bribe was not used, it became a ground for the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate to hold that there was no demand for bribe.
b) the second issue is that in a case where the T.L.O. was the D.S.P., the
case was investigated by the Inspector of Police, who is one rank below the D.S.P. and it contravenes paragraph 53 of V & A.C. Manual.
5.2 Developing his arguments the learned Prosecutor submitted, so far as the ground that no demand for 'bribe' was made is concerned, PW.2 was categorical that on tendering Rs.7,000/- to A2 and inquired him if he would issue a receipt for the same, A2 had replied that the money would be shared among all. After all, any demand for bribe to be in secrecy and each witness has his own way of explaining it. Merely because the word bribe was not used, it cannot be a conclusive factor to hold that there never was a demand for bribe.
5.3 So far as the alleged violation of paragraph 53 of V & A.C. Manual is concerned, the learned Prosecutor submitted that no accused can take advantage of any breach of the manual.
5/8
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
a) It might be true that an accused might not be able to take advantage of
every breach of V & A.C. Manual, but still the manual binds the investigators. This apart, for instance a failure to record statement under paragraph 47 might not be taken advantage of, for an accused person would still have an opportunity to participate in trial to disprove the case of the prosecution. Atleast, he is still can create certain serious dents in the prosecution case and hence a violation of paragraph No.47 is not considered as serious breach as to give a benefit or advantage to the accused. However, so far as breach of Rule 53 is concerned, it goes to the competency of the authority who can be an investigator.
b) so far as the demand part is concerned, PW.2 in his cross examination has conceded that A1 merely required PW.2 to pay necessary charges for change of tariff from domestic to commercial, and that A2, who is now dead, was also had made only a similar statement and that A1 at no point of time had demanded any bribe. If at all anything was spoken by PW.2 vis-a-vis demand, that was directed only against A2. This was corroborated by PW.4, the mother of PW.2, in whose name the service
6/8
connection for the building stands.
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
c) This apart, it is a trap case where the F.I.R. opens without the name of the accused person. The second curious thing is that while the alleged date of demand was stated to be on 21.02.2009, on a day prior to that, on 20.02.2009, A1 had raised a demand for Rs.16,444/- to PW.4, which both PW.4 and PW.2 admit. It is to avoid payment, PW.2 has engaged in this novel method of implicating an 'honest' public servant in a crime. Indeed, PW.4 vide Ext.D2 had only requested for payment of this sum in instalments. Vide Ext.D4 dated 17.11.2009, the respondent had informed them to keep payment of the sum demanded viz. sum of Rs.16,444/- in abeyance. This would indicate A1 was implicated in the case because he had made a demand for payment of official charges of Rs.16,444/-, and it is to evade the same and to continue to have electricity connection PW.2 had schemed with the T.L.O. Indeed the trial Court has strongly deprecated the conduct of the T.L.O.
This appeal stands dismissed......................... to be completed.
10.12.2024
kas Index : yes / no Neutral Citation
7/8
CRLA.No.42 of 2021
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
kas
Crl.A.No.42 of 2021
10.12.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused due to the absence of the word 'bribe' in the demand evidence?
Whether the investigation by an Inspector contrary to V&A Manual paragraph 53 invalidated the prosecution case?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State by Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police Special Investigation Cell Chennai
K.Gajendran
N.Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
