Dismissed¶76

J.C.Venkatesan v. State Rep by

Madras HC8 Jul 2026CRL A/626/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d); bribery trap 31.01.2007; Rs.5,000/- illegal gratification; building/planning approval, Erode Municipality; Town Planning Inspector; phenolphthalein test positive; Ex.P.9 Movements Diary timing contradiction; Ex.P.17 applications register; discreet enquiry guidelines; Vigilance and Anti-Corruption; conviction upheld; criminal appeal dismissed; Madras High Court CRL.A. 626 of 2022.

What did the court decide?

The mismatch between the Ex.P.9 Movements Diary and PW2's deposition about the time of the meeting on 29.01.2007 is a minor contradiction and does not establish that the 1st accused was absent from his office on the demand dates. ¶66

J.C.Venkatesan Vs State Rep by — Corruption | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶76

Issue for consideration

Whether the prosecution proved the demand for, acceptance of and recovery of the illegal gratification from the accused. +3 more

¶75

Court's answer

Positivity of the phenolphthalein test on the left hand does not contradict receipt of the bribe by the right hand, since the accused used both hands to hand the amount over to the 2nd accused; there is no evidence that the transfer was effected by the right hand alone.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

¶66

Key takeaways

The register signatures bear no recorded purpose and match neither the date of application nor the date of approval; PW1 approved the application on 26.12.2006, and even after approval was granted A1 and A2 made PW2 and PW4 wait merely for the sake of illegal gratification.ratio¶70
The FIR was registered on receipt of the complaint and a discreet enquiry was conducted thereafter; the prosecution need not go into whether the demand was made before or after grant of the planning approval.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J.), CRL.A.No.626 of 2022 (decided 08.07.2026): Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction of a Town Planning Inspector and a Chainman/Office Assistant of Erode Municipality under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act upheld. The accused were charged with demanding and accepting Rs.5,000/- as bribe for a building-planning approval, trapped on 31.01.2007 with phenolphthalein-marked notes, the amount received by Accused 1 and passed to Accused 2. Objections founded on (i) the Ex.P.9 Movements Diary timings, (ii) signatures of PW4 in the applications register (Ex.P.17) said to show prior sanction of the approval, and (iii) alleged breach of stipulated guidelines before the trap, were rejected: the time difference was treated as a minor contradiction, the register dates matched neither application nor approval, PW1's approval of 26.12.2006 did not preclude the demand, and PW13's discreet enquiry after FIR registration found the complaint genuine. Each accused remains sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- per offence, with one month's simple imprisonment in default.

¶1

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 12.06.2026

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 08.07.2026

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.A.No.626 of 2022

¶7

J.C.Venkatesan, Town Planning Inspector, Erode Municipality, residing at 65A/3, Ayyar Thottam, New Pallipalayam Road, Opp. B.Komarapalaiyam, Namakkal – 638183.

¶8

C.Ravi, Chainman/Office Assistant, Town Planning Section, Erode, residing at112/18, Vinayagar Koil Street, Maruthi Nagar, Moolapalayam, Erode 638 002.

¶9

..Appellants/ Accused 1 and 2

¶10

¶11

State rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Erode, (Crime No.1/AC/2007/ER)

¶12

..Respondent/ Complainant

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in Special C.C.No.33 of 2015 dated 14.06.2022.

¶14

Page1 of 14

¶15

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

¶16

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶17

For Appellant(s) :	Mr.A.Natarajan, Senior Counsel, Mrs.A.Madhumathi
For Respondent(s):	Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side)

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This Criminal Appeal is arising out of the Judgment passed in Special C.C.No.33 of 2015 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode dated 14.06.2022 thereby convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the defacto complainant owned a plot to an extent of 1200 sq.ft. house site situated at Ward D, Block No.28, Town Survey No.91 part, Kamachikadu, Erode, with a tiled house to an extent of 480 sq.ft. at Erode Municipal limit. She applied for planning approval to the Erode Municipality to build a house on 18.09.2006. However, the application was rejected on 26.10.2026 for want of some additional documents Subsequently, it was re-presented and handed over to the 1^st accused who was the Town Planning Inspector of Erode Municipality on 22.11.2006 at 01.00 p.m.

¶21

__________ Page2 of 14

¶22

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

¶23

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶24

3.In this regard, the complainant went to the office of the 1^st accused and

¶25

enquired about the building planning approval for which the 1^st accused demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for granting approval. However, on request of the complainant, it was reduced to Rs.7,000/- and on further request it was again reduced to Rs.5,000/-. Once again, the first accused had insisted the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as bribe on 31.01.2007 at 01.00p.m. at his office. The complainant was not willing to comply to the demand of bribe and hence, lodged a complaint before the respondent. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.1/AC/2007/ER for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶26

4.Thereafter, the 1^st respondent arranged a trap along with two Government officials after following the procedural formalities. The phenolphthalein quoted money of Rs.5,000/- was entrusted to the complainant and the complainant went to the office of the 1^st accused along with the official witnesses on 31.01.2007 at 12.45 p.m. However, the 2^nd accused, who was working as Chainman/Office Assistant of Town Planning Section, Erode Municipality demanded the complainant to hand over the bribe amount to him as instructed by the 1^st accused. But, the complainant was waiting till the approval of the 1^st accused. When the 1^st accused arrived to his seat, he demanded the complainant the bribe amount. Thereafter, it was given to the 1^st

¶27

Page3 of 14

¶28

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

¶29

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶30

accused and the first accused passed the said amount to the 2^nd accused. Immediately, the official witnesses rushed to the office of the 1^st and 2^nd accused. However, after seeing the Government Officials, the 2^nd accused flew

¶31

away from the place of the office. However, the 1^st accused was caught redhanded and thereafter, the 2^nd accused was also secured by the respondent. The Trap Team conducted phenolphthalein test with the 1^st accused. The results of which came out to be positive. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final reports and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

¶32

5.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW14 and marked Ex.P.1to Ex.P.31. The prosecution also produced M.O.s 1to 8. On the side of the accused, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 were marked and no one was examined to disprove the charges.

¶33

6.After analysing the oral and documentary evidence made on either side, the Trial Court found both the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced each of the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default,

¶34

Page4 of 14

¶35

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

¶36

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶37

to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 1 month for the offence Under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶38

7.The learned Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of tainted money from the 1^st accused. The prosecution also failed to follow the stipulated guidelines before filing the final report. Upon receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the Sanctioning Authority returned to the concerned Officer, who proceeded to register the FIR without conducting any discreet enquiry as contemplated under the guidelines. The complaint was lodged on 31.01.2007 about 08.00a.m. The FIR was registered on 08.30a.m. on the same day. Thereafter, on the same day at 12.50 p.m. the 1^st respondent had set up a trap. Even according to the Sanctioning Authority who had deposed as DW1, the application for planning approval was considered as early as on 26.10.2006 itself. Therefore, there was absolutely no need to demand any bribe from the defacto complainant. The complaint itself was an ill-motivated one. To that effect, the complainant was duly cross examined by the accused. He further submitted that on the date of the alleged demand, namely, on 08.01.2007 and 29.05.2007, the 1^st accused was not even present in his office. He went for field inspection. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the prosecution had marked Movements Diary of the 1^st accused as Ex.P.9. Accordingly, the 1^st accused went for field inspection and

¶39

Page5 of 14

¶40

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

¶41

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶42

came to his place only after evening, whereas the complainant deposed that he met the 1^st accused in the office at about 11.000a.m. and the 1^st accused demanded bribe to grant the planning approval. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the very demand itself.

¶43

8.According to the prosecution, the 1^st accused received the tainted money with his right hand and handed over the same to the 2^nd accused. During the phenolphthalein test, the results for his left hand was also found to be positive. Insofar as the 2^nd accused is concerned, he did not demand any bribe and the only allegation against him was that the first accused received the said bribe and subsequently handed over the same to the second accused. He further submitted that Ex.P.17 - Information Centre Building Application Register, reveals that the mother of the defacto complainant namely the applicant duly received the planning permission approval on 18.10.2006 itself. She had also duly signed the register. That apart, the 1^st accused is the field inspector and hence, no application can be filed before the 1^st accused seeking for planning approval.

¶44

9.After getting planning permission, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint due to the political motive and with previous enemity with regard to the removal of posters by the accused as the defacto complainant is associated with one political party. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the

¶45

Page6 of 14

¶46

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

¶47

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶48

demands, acceptance and recovery. Hence, no charges are made out against the accused and even then, the Trial Court has mechanically convicted the accused.

¶49

Per contra, the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) contended that though the 1^st accused went to the field inspection on the dates of demand i.e, on 08.01.2007 and 29.01.2007, he subsequently returned to his office. At this juncture, the defacto complainant had gone to his office and had enquired about the application for the planning permission. The 1^st accused demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for granting permission. Had the 1^st accused not demanded any bribe, he would have refused to receive the bribe on 31.01.2007, while the trap was set up by the respondent. During the trap, the 1^st accused duly received the bribe amount from the complainant and handed over the same to the 2^nd accused. In fact, the 2^nd accused fled from the scene of the crime and from the Government officials. Had the accused not committed any crime, there was absolutely no reason for him to flee from the scene of occurrence.

¶50

11.Further, the owner of the land had deposed as PW4. Ex.P.17 is the Register of receiving applications. Accordingly, the petitioner’s mother submitted application and it was duly acknowledged by her. PW1 deposed that the approval was perused and approved only on 20.12.2006. Therefore, Ex.P.17 is nothing but a Register maintained for receipt of application for planning

¶51

Page7 of 14

¶52

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

¶53

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶54

permission. Though PW1 perused the application and granted approval, it was not communicated to the accused or was proceeded further. Instead, the accused met the defacto complainant’s mother and demanded bribe. Further, the 1^st respondent, on receipt of the complaint from the defacto complainant had conducted enquiry about the conduct of the accused and the defacto complainant and only thereafter, set up a trap. But, in the trap, both the accused got caught red-handed and as such the prosecution clearly proved the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe from the accused. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and it does not warrant any interference of this Court.

¶55

12.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material available on record.

¶56

13.There are two accused in the present case. The 1^st accused was working as Town Planning Inspector in the Erode Municipality and the 2^nd accused was working as Chainman/Office Assistant in the same Municipality. On receipt of the application for planning approval to construct a house in the house plot owned by PW4, PW2 visited the office of the accused. However, on the first occasion, it was returned for want of some documents. Once again, it was re-presented after compliance of all the queries on 22.11.2006. Thereafter, when PW2 visited the office of the 1^st accused on 08.01.2007 about 01.00 p.m.,

¶57

Page8 of 14

¶58

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

¶59

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶60

the 1^st accused demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/-. On request, it was reduced to Rs.5,000/- and once again, when PW2 visited the office of the 1^st accused on 29.01.2007 at about 11.30a.m., the 1^st accused had insisted PW2 to settle a

¶61

bribe of Rs.5,000/- on 31.01.2007. PW2, not willing to comply with the said demand, lodged the complaint before the 1^st respondent. The complaint was marked as Ex.P.2. On receipt of the said complaint, the 1^st respondent registered the FIR which is marked as Ex.P.27. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent arranged a trap with the assistance of the Government Officials at about 12.45p.m. at the office of the accused on 31.01.2007. The bribe amount was handed over to the 1^st accused and the same was received by him and in turn, he handed over the bribe amount to the 2^nd accused. When the Government Officials entered into the office of the 1st accused, after seeing the officials, the 2^nd accused was trying to escape from the scene of crime. However, he was chased and caught hold by the 1^st respondent and his Team. Both the accused got caught red-handed and they were subjected to phenolphthalein test and the result of the test came out to be positive.

¶62

14.The learned Senior counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that PW2 deposed that the 1^st accused, after receiving the bribe amount with his right hand, handed the same over to the 2^nd accused. However, his left hand was also subjected to phenolphthalein test and the result of the test came out to be positive. It is pertinent to note that the person received the bribe with his hand

¶63

Page9 of 14

¶64

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

¶65

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶66

and thereafter, using both of his hands, handed it over to the 2^nd accused. Further, there is no evidence to show that the 1^st accused after receiving the bribe amount, handed it over to the 2^nd accused only by using his right hand. Insofar as Ex.P.9 – Diary of the 1^st accused is concerned, it is maintained by the 1^st accused for his field visit. According to the case of the prosecution, the 1^st accused made his first demand on 08.01.2007 and thereafter, on 29.01.2007. On 08.01.2007, the 1^st accused went for field inspection and returned to his office during afternoon and had met PW2 about 01.00 p.m. On the next occasion, i.e., 29.01.2007 also, the 1^st accused went for field inspection and returned to his office during afternoon. However, PW2 deposed that he met the 1^st accused at about 11.30 hours. The time difference is a minor contradiction, and as such, it cannot be said that the 1^st accused was not in his office on 29.01.2007. Further, based on the said demand, PW2 went to the office of the accused on 31.01.2007 with the bribe amount. Had the 1^st accused not demanded any bribe, he would not have received the bribe amount. The 1^st accused expected PW2 on 31.01.2007 and in fact, he was not there in his office at 01.45 p.m. and at the time when PW2 went to his office. Therefore, the 1^st accused had instructed the 2^nd accused to receive the bribe from PW2. However, PW2 waited in his office till his arrival. After the arrival of the 1^st accused, PW2 gave a sum of Rs.5,000/- as bribe to the first accused and it was duly received by him and thereafter, the same was handed over to the 2^nd accused.

¶67

__________ Page10 of 14

¶68

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

¶69

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶70

15.Insofar as PW17 is concerned, which is the Register maintained by the office to record the receipt of the applications of the year 2006, PW4 had signed the Register on two dates i.e, 18.09.2006 and 18.10.2006. However, there is no mention as to what the sign was for. Even assuming that signs on both the dates are for the receipt of the application for grant of approval, PW1, PW8 and PW10 categorically deposed that the complainant’s application was considered by PW1 and it was approved on 26.12.2006 itself. Therefore, both the dates are neither matching the date of application nor the date of approval. The case of the prosecution is that the application for seeking complainant’s approval was re-presented on 22.11.2006 and thereafter, it was approved by PW1 on 26.12.2006. Thus, it has come to light that even after PW1 had granted the approval, A1 & A2 had made PW2 and PW4 wait just for the sake of illegal gratification. In fact, to that extent the accused did not even cross examine in respect of Ex.P.17 and the accused also did not cross examine any of the witnesses of the prosecution.

¶71

16.That apart, the prosecution need not go into the details as to when the application for planning approval was approved or whether the demand was made before or after the approval was granted. Further, on receipt of the complaint, the 1^st respondent registered the FIR and thereafter, conducted discreet enquiry. PW13 - Inspector of Police who registered the FIR deposed that he conducted discreet enquiry after registration of FIR and found that there

¶72

Page11 of 14

¶73

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

¶74

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶75

was no previous enemity between the accused and PW2 and found that the complaint lodged by PW2 is a genuine one. Only thereafter, he set up the trap with the assistance of the Government Officials and caught the accused redhanded. Thereafter, the accused were subjected to phenolphthalein test. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification from the accused.

¶76

Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and it does not warrant any interference of this Court. Hence, this Criminal Appeal fails. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶77

08-07-2026

¶78

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MPS/LOK

¶79

__________ Page12 of 14

¶80

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

¶81

CRL.A.No. 626 of 2022

¶82

¶83