Tr.M.Ramiah, Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

Tr.M.Ramiah, Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal partly allowed: conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act confirmed; sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment for each of the two offences; substantive sentences to run concurrently; period already undergone to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.; other conditions imposed in Spl.Case.No.54 of 2011 left unaltered; bail bond cancelled and the trial court directed to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining sentence; case listed on 27.06.2025 for reporting compliance.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge as against the appellant is sustainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt; no case is made out to interfere with the trial Judge's finding that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.2 to process the patta proceedings, and the conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is confirmed.

Ratio / Principle

The deposition of P.W.2 in his belated cross-examination (conducted nearly three years after the chief examination) that the amount was paid as 'survey expenditure' cannot be accepted; his chief-examination evidence of demand of Rs.2,000/- as bribe, reiterated during the prosecutor's cross-examination and not challenged by the accused, remains unchallenged evidence of demand and acceptance.

Key takeaways

Following Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai, the presumption on receipt of money not due can be rebutted only by proof and not by a merely plausible explanation; a defence first projected at the Section 313 Cr.P.C. stage without disclosure at the time of the trap should be slow to be accepted unless established through evidence.ratio¶117
The evidence of P.W.5 (then Tahsildar) about the panchayat and P.W.2's agreement to pay Rs.2,000/- as survey expenditure is false and uncorroborated: Kasimayan and Thanikodi, stated to be present at the panchayat, were not examined, and Ex.P9 contains no reference to the panchayat or the amount; the unconnected deposition of a prosecution witness without corroboration cannot be accepted.ratio¶132

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Prevention of Corruption Act — Trap case against Village Administrative Officer — Demand and acceptance of Rs.2,000/- for sending report and processing patta rectification/measurement — Conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) PC Act confirmed — Defence of 'survey expenditure' under a village compromise rejected: (i) version surfacing only in P.W.2's cross-examination held nearly three years after his chief examination eschewed, following Akil alias Javed, Vinod Kumar and Dharmaraj, especially as the chief-examination evidence of demand was reiterated in the prosecutor's cross-examination and left unchallenged; (ii) presumption on receipt of money not due rebuttable only by proof, not by a merely plausible explanation (Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai), and belated explanations first offered under Section 313 Cr.P.C. viewed with caution (State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B.Mulani; A. Abdul Kaffar); (iii) P.W.5's panchayat version uncorroborated — the named panchayatdars (Kasimayan, Thanikodi) not examined and Ex.P9 silent on the panchayat and amount; (iv) no explanation at the time of recovery, no challan issued, and no authority in the VAO to collect measurement charges; measurement file recovered from his custody under Ex.P4 — Mitigating circumstances (age about 62, illness): substantive sentence reduced from two years to one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence, to run concurrently, with Section 428 Cr.P.C. set off; bail bond cancelled and trial court directed to secure the appellant — Appeal partly allowed.

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on : 02.12.2024 Pronounced on : 15.05.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

Tr.M.Ramiah

... Appellant/ Sole Accused

Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Madurai. (Crime No.03 of 2005)

... Respondent/ Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records from the trial Court and set aside the conviction and sentence passed in Spl.Case.No.54 of 2011 dated 15.10.2018, on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai.

1/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

For appellant : Mr.B.Sarvanan Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Arivuchandran For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

The sole accused in Special Case No.54 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge for the Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai. By the said judgment, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and to undergo two years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 2/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

P.W.2 is the owner of the property situated in the village, namely, ChinnaKoravanpatti. During the UDR program, the entries of his ancestral land was wrongly entered in the name of the P.W.5. Therefore, he made application to the Tashildar office to rectify the mistake and give the patta in respect of the survey number which was wrongly entered in the name of P.W.5. The Tashildar received the application and forwarded the same to the Deputy Tashildar and the village administrative officer, namely, the appellant. P.W.2 and his brother approached the appellant to send the report to the Tashildar office and he demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/- as bribe. On 10.03.2005 he reiterated the said demand and asked to give it on 11.03.2005 at 4.00 pm. Thereafter, not willing to pay the amount, he approached the respondent vigilance office and he approached the officer P.W.17. P.W.17 after receipt of the complaint from P.W.2, registered the case in crime number and asked P.W 3 and P.W.14 official witnesses and 3/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

demonstrated the phenolphthalein test and smeared the phenolphthalein powder over the amount brought by P.W.2. Thereafter, the Trap Laying officer prepared the entrustment mahazar and also asked P.W.3 to go along with P.W.2 and watch the proceedings taking place between P.W.3 and the accused officer. P.W.2 went to the office of the appellant and he was not present and hence, he went to another village and there also he was not available and finally he was found in ChinnaKoravanpatti village. The appellant emerged out of the Manikandan Tea Shop, in the said village and reiterated the demand and received the amount from P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.3 and thereafter P.W.2 gave the signal and phenolpthalein test was conducted in the hands of the appellant and on seeing the colour change the amount was recovered after following the procedure. After recovery, the appellant was arrested and produced before the Court along with the recovery mahazar with the recovered amount and other documents. Thereafter, the investigating officer conducted investigation and examined number of witnesses and 4/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

also obtained the sanction and filed the final report before the special Court for Prevention of Corruption Cases, Madurai, and the same was taken on file in special.Case.No.54 of 2011.

After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same were read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 17 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17 and exhibited 25 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and marked five material objects as M.O.1 to M.O. 5. On the side of the appellant no witness was examined, but 5/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

exhibited one document as Ex.D1.

5.The learned Trial Judge after completion of the

examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence and the appellant denied them as false and gave an explanation that after the receipt of application, the villagers themselves convened compromise meeting and as per the compromise, P.W.5 agreed to give back the land wrongly entered in his name and also agreed to measure the properties, and P.W.2 should bear the entire expenditure. For that purpose Rs.2,000/- was agreed to be entrusted with the Village Administrative Officer, namely the accused officer. He received the amount and was asked to measure the properties and he did not receive the amount as illegal gratification. But,w no witnes was examined. One document Ex.D1 was marked on the side of the appellant. In the said circumstances, learned trial judge, after considering the entire 6/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

evidence, convicted the appellant without accepting the explanation, by passing the impugned order as stated above. Challenging the same, he filed the present appeal before this court.

The learned senior counsel Thiru B.Saravanan would submit that the demand was not proved as per law. P.W.2 in chief examination has stated that he demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. But the entire reading of the evidence in chief would show that the amount was entrusted with the Village Administrative Officer to meet out the expenditure of measuring the properties. Therefore, is a probable explanation was given by the appellant when the specific case of P.W.2 was that the amount was entrusted with the accused officer only as expenditure to measure the land. The said evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by the independent witness, namely, P.W 5/Chellappa. He specifically deposed before the Court that there was a compromise between P.W 5 and P.W 2 in the presence of the elders of the village and all advised to measure the property and P.W.2 should bear the cost. The said amount was 7/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

also directed to be entrusted with the Village Administrative

Officer and if more amount is incurred, the same should be borne by P.W.2. In the said circumstances, P.W.2's evidence is corroborated by P.W.5 and hence, even though acceptance was proved, the amount was not illegal gratification. It was only for

the purpose of meeting out the expenses for measuring the property, for which, there is a possible explanation corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5. Hence, the necessary ingredients of either Sections 7 or 13 are not present in this case and hence, he seeks for acquittal.

6.1.The Learned Senior counsel further submitted that there

is no clear evidence relating to making over the application of P.W.2 to the Village Administrative Officer. According to the prosecution, the file was taken from the village administrative officer, but P.W 5 Tahsildar was examined as a prosecution witness and he specifically deposed that P.W.2, surreptitiously took the application from the file and entrusted with the village 8/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

Ex.D1.

administrative officer, for which, he initiated proceedings under Ex.D1.

6.2.Therefore, learned Senior counsel submitted the

prosecution case that the file was taken from the village administrative officer is doubtful and hence, he seeks for acquittal. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the charge specifically states that P.W.2 made application to the Tahsildar, P.W.5 and the same was made over to the village administrative officer through the proper channel. The word “cupa gjpTfSld; gjpTfSf;Fg; gpd;”, in the charge itself shows that there was proper entry in the document of jurisdictional Tahsildar's office. In this case, there was no charge and the said document was not produced by the prosecution. Further, the relevant officer was also not examined. In the said circumstances, there is serious doubt over the entire trap proceedings. More particularly, P.W.5's evidence is contrary.

9/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

7.The learned Additional public prosecutor submitted that P.W 2, P.W 2 in chief examination stated that he demanded

money, but during the cross examination of the appellant, he submitted that there is no demand. He entrusted the amount only for the purpose of meeting out the expenses for taking measurement. But tin further cross examination of the prosecution, he re-affirmed the statement made in the chief examination that the appellant demanded bribe amount. In the said circumstances, the entire reading of the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that there was demand and hence, the offence under section 7 is clearly made out and on the basis of the said demand, the amount of Rs.2,000/- was received by the accused officer, namely appellant. The accused officer gave an explanation that he was received the said amount to meet out the expenditure for the measurement. To prove the same no evidence was adduced on the side of the appellant. There was a proposal to measure the property through the surveyor. The appellant has no authority to receive the amount, to survey the land. Only the Tashidhar alone 10/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

has power to receive the amount to survey the land. In the said circumstances, they have come up with a false defence. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that P.W.5 was only examined to prove the case of the prosecution that the recovery was made in his presence. He is not examined to speak any other fact. In the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W.5 to show that there was a panchayat and an amount of Rs.2,000/- was fixed for making measurement deserved to be rejected. According to the Public Prosecutor, when the witness was examined for a particular purpose, his evidence should be recorded only for the said purpose and not to deviate it. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the explanation of P.W.5 that the amount was received not as illegal gratification is not correct. Admittedly, he has no authority to receive the amount as expenses to measure the land. In the said circumstances, his defence is stage-managed one in order to escape from the legitimate punishment under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 11/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

7.1.The Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that

there is no explanation at the time of the receipt of the amount. In the said circumstances, he seeks to reject the explanation offered belatedly without proper evidence. The learned Counsel also specifically stated that there is a delay in examination of the witnesses. During such delay, witness/P.W.2 would have been own over and hence, he seeks to reject the defence, theory that the amount was received to meet the expenses to measure the property.

8.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusded the materials available on record.

9.Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the

learned trial Judge as against the appellant is sustainable?

12/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

10.Admittedly, there is no dispute relating to the acceptance

of the bribe amount and recovery of amount. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the accused accounted for the recovered amount. According to the appellant, he received the amount to meet out the expenditure for measuring the land. The learned Senior counsel would submit that the said explanation was supported by the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.2 himself.

11.P.W.2 was examined in chief on 06.08.2008 and he

deposed about the demand made by the appellant as bribe in clear and categorical terms, which reads as follows:

epyj;ij gl;lh msg;gjw;F vdf;F nrytpw;F & 2000 Ntz;Lk; vd;W Nfl;lhh;.

12.But in his cross examination conducted nearly after three

years on 03.03.2011 he gave a different version that P.W.2 agreed before the panchayatar to pay the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the

13/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

appellant as “ survey expenditure ” and paid the said amount on the date of the trap which reads as follows:

vy;NyhUk; fye;J Ngrp KbT nra;jjd; mbg;gilapy; gzk; vLj;J nghpath;fs; nrhd;dJNghy gzj;ij vLj;J te;jpUg;gjhf mjid thq;fpr; nry;Yk;gbAk; vjphpaplk; nrhy;yp gzj;ij nfhLj;Njd;.

13.Therefore, he was declared hostile and during the cross examination, of prosecutor P.W.2 admitted and reiterated the stand taken in the chief examination and the said following portion of the cross examination is not challenged by the appellant counsel by way of cross examination and therefore, there is unchallenged evidence available against the demand and acceptance of Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification.

6.8.2008y; vd; Kjy; tprhuizapy; 10.03.2004y; tpVit ghh;j;jNghJ epyj;ij gl;lh msg;gjw;F jdf;F nryTf;F &.2000-juNtz;Lk; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. ,ij kWehs; nfhz;L te;J nfhLf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. vdf;F me;j gzk; nfhLf;f ,;lk; ,y;yhjjhy; ehd; Gfhh; nfhLj;Njd; vd;W nrhy;ypAs;Nsd; vd;why; rhp. 14.3.2005 md;W vd;id ek;gpuh[d; Ma;thsh; tprhhpj;jNghJ 10.3.2005y; tpVX uhikahit ma;adhh;Fsj;jpy; itj;J gl;lh khWjy; Fwpj;J Nfl;lNghJ gl;lh khWjy; nra;J ju jdf;Fk;

14/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

jhYfh MgPrpy; cs;sth;fSf;Fk; Nrh;j;J &.2000nfhLj;jhy; jhd; gl;lh khWjYf;F rpghhpR nra;Ntd; vd;Wk; Nkw;gb Nfl;l yQ;rg;gzj;ij 11.3.2005 md;W rhaq;fhyk; 4 kzp mstpy; nfhzlhk;gl;bfpuhkj;jpy; te;J nfhLf;FkhW tw;GWj;jp $wpdhh; vd;W nrhy;ypAs;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;. me;j gzj;ij yQ;rk; nfhLf;f vdf;F tpUg;gkpy;iy vd;W yQ;r xopg;G mYtyfk; nrd;W Gfhh; nfhLj;Njd; vd;W tprhuizapy; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd; vd;why; rhpjhd;.

14.This Court is unable to accept the deposition of P.W.2 during the cross examination that the amount was paid to the appellant to meet out the survey expenditure on two grounds:

(i)the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akil alias javed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2013 3 SCC (Crl) 63 and in the case of Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, reported in 2015 (3) SCC 220 has held that if the witnesses deposed adverse to the prosecution case during belated cross examination, their evidence in the chief examination has to be accepted. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court also affirmed the said principle in the case of Dharmaraj vs. The Inspector of Police reported in 2012 (2) LW (crl) 458 and the relevant paragraph is as follows:

15/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

21.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in Akil alias Javed v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2013 (3) SCC (Crl) 63, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has had an occasion to deal with similar factual situation and ultimately held that in a criminal proceeding if a witness has been cross-examined after a long interval from the date of the chief examination and circumstances are available for the purpose of believing that he or she might have been won over by other side, such evidence can be disregarded/eschewed.

Therefore his evidence in the belated cross examination that the

amount was given to meet out the survey expenditure cannot be accepted.

(ii) He reiterated his stand in the chief examination during the cross examination of the public prosecutor as extracted above and the same was not further cross examined on the side of the accused and the said evidence remains unchallenged. On this score also the case of the appellant that the amount was received to meet out the expenditure cannot be accepted.

16/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

15.The appellant gave an explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that he received the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the

survey expenditure ie.,

thjp khh;f;fz;ld; epyk; NtW egh;fspd; ngahpy; gl;lh khwp ,Ue;jjhy;> mjw;F ehd; khtl;l epy msthplk; nrd;W epyj;ij msg;gjw;F cz;lhd gzj;ijf; fl;b msf;f Vw;ghL nra;AkhW $wpNdd;. mjw;F Ch; nghpath;fs; epyj;ij msg;gjw;F cz;lhd nrytpid thjp khh;f;fz;ld; Vw;Wf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk;> mjw;F cz;lhFk; njhifia vd;dplk; nghJfl;b itf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;Wk; $wpdhh;fs;. mjd;gb &.2000I Nkw;gb epyj;ij msg;gjw;fhf vd;dplk; nghJfl;b itf;fg;gl;lJ.

16.The Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the

case of Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra [1963 Supp (1) SCR 485 has held as follows:

“Therefore, the Court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to that person to show that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration, it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful.

17/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words ‘unless the contrary is proved’ which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by ‘proof’ and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted.

***

Something more than raising a reasonable probability, is required for rebutting a presumption of law. The bare word of the appellant is not enough and it was necessary for him to show that upon the established practice his

18/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

explanation was so probable that a prudent man ought, in the circumstances, to have accepted it.”

16.1.Therefore, The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments has held that if the defence was projected at the time of proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., without disclosing the same at the time of the trap, Courts should slow in accepting the same unless the defence should be established through evidence.

16.1.1 In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B.Mulani ,

reported in (2006) 1 SCC 407 has held as follows:

10. ... courts are wary of accepting belated explanations given for the first time in the statement under Section 313 and not at the first available opportunity.

16.1.2. In the case of A. Abdul Kaffar v. State of Kerala , reported

in (2004) 9 SCC 333 has held as follows :

6... The very fact that he failed to mention this to the IO at the first available opportunity, shows that this defence is not genuine....

19/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

16.2.P.W.5, then Thasildar was examined to prove a fact that rival party of P.W.2 who had the land adjoining to P.W.2's land

and who had mutated P.W.2's land in his name and obtained the patta, agreed to measure the properties under Ex.P9. But, during the cross examination, an answer was elicited by the defence counsel that in the panchayat, P.W.2 agreed to give Rs.2,000/- to the appellant to meet out the survey expenditure. On the basis of the said answer, the appellant gave the explanation in 313 Cr.P.C., that he received the amount towards the survey expenditure.

17.The said evidence of P.W.5 and the explanation are not only false and also not supported by either oral or documentary evidence. According to P.W.5, “ Kasimayan” and “ Thanikodi” were present during the said panchayat. They were not examined to corroborate the said version. He was examined for the purpose of marking and speak about Ex.P9. After retirement, P.W.5 in his cross examination deposed about the factum of panchayat and agreement on the part of P.W.2 to give a sum of Rs.2,000/- as a 20/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

survey expenditure to help the accused. Apart from that, there is no reference about the panchayat and amount in Ex.P9. Therefore, the unconnected deposition of the prosecution witness without any corroboration cannot be accepted. This Court is unable to accept the submission of the learned Senior Counsel and the appellant's answer of 313 Cr.P.C., that the appellant received the amount to measure the property.

18.The appellant never gave the said explanation during the recovery of bribe amount P.W.2 gave such an answer after a long time. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he has no authority to receive the amount to measure the properties. Even otherwise, he has not issued any challan for receipt of the said amount to meet out the survey expenditure. In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to accept the defence that the amount was received as to meet out the expenditure for the measurement.

21/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

P.W.3/ independent official witness also deposed that

the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe amount. mjw;F vjphp khh;fz;ldplk; ehd; Nfl;l &.2 Mapuk; nfhz;L te;jpUf;fpwpah vd;W mtiu ghh;j;J Nfl;lhh;. and the same was corroborated by evidence of P.W.2. Apart from that, the original file relating to the measurement of the P.W.2's land was in the custody of the appellant. The officer recommended to conduct survey and submit report on 02.12.2004. The appellant has no authority to hold the file and surveyor is the authority to measure the property and therefore, the case of the P.W.2 that the appellant demanded amount to measure and mutate the patta in his name is proved through the circumstances also. According to the senior counsel the recovery of file is not proved, is not correct and also cannot be accepted. The file was taken from the Village Administrative Officer by the Trap Laying Officer/P.W.14 under Ex.P4/recovery mahazar. The said fact was not denied by the appellant during the questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., or any of the proceedings. Hence, the demand also proved through 22/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

the oral and documentary evidence.

20.Therefore, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and there no case is made out to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.2 to process the patta proceedings to convict the appellant under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

21.The appellant is aged about 62 years and suffering from various illness and his wife is also suffering from old age illness and therefore, he has to take care of his children. Hence, this Court inclines to consider the said mitigating circumstances and reduce the sentence of imprisonment from Two years R.I to 1 year R.I.

23/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

22.Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with the following terms:

(i)conviction recorded by the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases, Madurai, in Spl.Case.No.54 of 2011 dated 15.10.2018 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is hereby confirmed.

(ii)The sentence of two years of Rigorous Imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby reduced to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment.

(iii)The sentence of two years of Rigorous Imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is also hereby reduced to 1 year of rigorous imprisonment.

(iv)All the substantive sentence of imprisonment are to run concurrently. The period if already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(v) The other conditions imposed in Spl.Case.No.54 of 2011, 24/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai vide judgment dated 15.10.2018 shall remain unaltered.

(vi) The Bail bond executed by the appellant herein is hereby cancelled and the Court below is hereby directed to take steps to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence of imprisonment.

List this case on 27.06.2025 for “reporting compliance”.

15.05.2025

NCC :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No sbn

25/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

To

1.The Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act, Cases,

Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

26/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

sbn

Crl.A.(MD).No.502 of 2018

15.05.2025

27/27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis