IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30.11.2009 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.A.No.1445 of 2002 1.A.V.Vijayarangan 2.V.Subramanian 3.K.Doraisamy ... Appellants Vs. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti-corruption Salem ... Respondent This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code as against the order of conviction and sentence made in Special C.C.No.139/1992 dated 23.09.2002 by the learned I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. For Appellant : Mr.A.Padmanaban For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniapparaj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) J U D G M E N T
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 in a corruption case, namely Special C.C.No.139/1992 instituted on the file of the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (I Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Salem, who stood charged, tried, found guilty as per the charge for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default the payment of fine to undergo a further period of two months rigorous imprisonment each under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default in payment of fine to undergo a further period of two months rigorous imprisonment each under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have come forward with the present appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on them.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
i) P.W.2-Sekaran was doing business in quarrying limestone and supplying the same to the factories for which he had obtained necessary permit from the concerned authorities. During the relevant point of time A.V.Vijayarangan, the first appellant/first accused was working as Special Tahsildar (Mines) in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem. V.Subramanian, the 2nd appellant/2nd accused was working as Special Revenue Inspector (Mines), Sankari. Gunasekaran (since deceased), who figured as the third accused and K.Doraisamy, the fourth accused were working as Assistant and Watchman respectively in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem.
ii) On 02.09.1989, a lorry bearing Regn.No.TDM 2365 was intercepted by the officials of the Geology and Mines department near Sankari Police Station when the same was found transporting limestone without proper permit and the said lorry with the limestone loaded on it was entrusted to the police in Sankari Police Station for safe custody till necessary orders would be passed by the District Collector. On receiving information regarding the interception and impounding of the lorry, P.W.2-Sekaran met the first appellant/first accused Vijayarangan and the second appellant/second accused Subramanian in the guest house of India Cements Factory, Sankari and pleaded for help to get his lorry released. The first appellant/first accused Vijayarangan, at that point of time demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification for getting the release order. The second accused also supported the demand made by the first accused by asking who would help him if he came with bare hands. They asked P.W.2 to come and meet them in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem.
iii) P.W.2 again went to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem whereupon he was asked by the first accused to meet the deceased third accused Gunasekaran. When P.W.2 met Gunasekaran, he demanded a sum of Rs.100/- as illegal gratification for putting up a note for the release order. He also directed P.W.2 to meet the second accused. When P.W.2 met the second accused, he too demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification and also directed P.W.2 to meet the first accused. When P.W.2 again met the first accused and pleaded for the movement of the file, he demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification.
iv) Again on 06.09.1989 also P.W.2 met the first and second accused and also the deceased third accused. At that point of time the deceased Gunasekaran (third accused) asked P.W.2 whether he had brought the money to be paid as illegal gratification as he was directed to bring. At that juncture P.W.2 replied that he would make payment as soon as the release order was ready. Again on 08.09.1989, P.W.2 met the deceased Gunasekaran at about 3.00 p.m whereupon he informed P.W.2 that he received a phone call from the camp office of the District Collector to the effect that the file was made ready, but the office assistant was not available to bring the file. At that time, the watchman, namely the fourth accused Duraisamy, volunteered to go with P.W.2 to the camp office of the District Collector. At the instructions of Gunasekaran, he went to the camp office of the District Collector along with P.W.2 and brought the file relating to the seizure of the above said lorry to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem.
iv) Again on 11.09.1989, P.W.2 went to the said office in the hope of getting the release order. When he met the accused 1 to 4, the third accused, namely deceased Gunasekaran demanded a sum of Rs.100/- and the other accused, namely A1, A2 and A4 demanded a sum of Rs.200/- each as illegal gratification. Not willing to pay such illegal gratification, P.W.2 went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing, Salem and lodged a complaint in writing under Ex.P2. P.W.14-Thiru.Vellingiri, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem received the said complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.11/AC/89 on the file of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing, Salem. Ex.P20 is the First Information Report prepared by P.W.14. P.W.14 arranged for a trap, for which he had invited P.W.2, Mani (P.W.3), Assistant Engineer, O&M., T.N.E.B., Salem and Ganesan to be the witnesses for the same. In their presence he demonstrated how the Phenolphthalein test would be conducted in trap cases. He caused the money brought by P.W.2 to be given as bribe to the accused persons to be coated with phenolphthalein powder and re-entrusted the same to P.W.2 with instructions to give it to the accused persons, if they make a demand. Necessary mahazar was prepared for the said purpose under Ex.P3 in the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Salem. P.W.3 was asked to accompany P.W.2 to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem to watch the happenings there.
v) P.W.2 went to the office of the accused persons along with P.W.3 and handed over a sum of Rs.200/- to each one of the accused 1, 2 and 4 and a sum of Rs.100/- to accused No.3/Gunasekaran (deceased) from out of the currency notes coated with phenolphthalein powder, as each one of them demanded payment. Soon after the accused persons received the said amounts as illegal gratification, as per the arrangement, P.W.2 came out and gave a signal to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption officials by changing the wrist watch from the left hand to the right hand. Consequently, P.W.14 and the other members of his team rushed into the office and conducted phenolphthalein test for the hands of the accused persons, which proved positive. The money received by the accused persons as illegal gratification from P.W.2 were also recovered from the accused persons. When the numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers noted in the Mahazar prepared in the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing, Salem, they tallied. Apart from the sum of Rs.700/- recovered from the accused persons, P.W.14 also recovered a sum of Rs.2,290/- under Ex.P6 from the other staff members. Apart from the said amount a sum of Rs.2,001/- which had been dropped through the window by some of the persons employed in the said office was also recovered under Ex.P5. Phenolphthalein tests were also conducted for the pockets of the wearing apparels of the accused persons. The Sodium Carbonate solution used for conducting phenolphthalein test and the control Sodium Carbonate solution were also packed and sealed separately. Later on they were sent to the forensic lab for chemical examination. On analysis in the forensic lab, all those solutions used for phenolphthalein test for the fingers of the accused and for the for the pockets of the wearing apparels of the accused persons were found to contain phenolphthalein and the control Sodium Carbonate solution did not contain phenolphthalein. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing continued the investigation, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, obtained sanction order from P.W.1-R.A.Seetharam Das, I.A.S., the then Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Madras for prosecuting the accused persons under Ex.P1 and submitted a final report accusing accused 1, 2 and 4 of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. On appearance of the appellants herein/accused 1, 2 and 4 before the trial court, they pleaded innocence. Before framing of charges, the third accused, namely Gunasekaran died and the charges framed against the deceased A3 stood abated. Hence charges were framed against A1, A2 and A4 alone by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellants herein/accused 1, 2 and 4 denied the said charges, pleaded not guilty and wanted the case to be tried.
4. In order to substantiate the prosecution case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21 and produced 20 material objects as M.Os.1 to 20 on the side of the prosecution. After recording of evidence on the side of the prosecution was over, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. Each one of the accused denied them as false and once again reiterated their stand that they were innocent and that the case was foisted by P.W.2. Each one of the accused 1, 2 and 4 have also filed a written statement. On the side of the accused/appellants herein, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and five documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D5.
5. The trial judge heard the arguments advanced on either side, considered the evidence brought before him in this case in the light of the points urged in such arguments. Upon such consideration, came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused and imposed sentence, as cited supra in his judgment dated 23.09.2002.
6. Aggrieved by the same and challenging the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed in the judgment dated 23.09.2002, the appellants have preferred this appeal on various grounds set out in the appeal petition.
7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows:-
“Whether the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 suffer from any defect or illegality, capable of being interfered with in exercise of the appellate powers of this court?”
8. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants Mr.A.Padmanaban, learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the court below was not sustainable in law, as the same was against weight of evidence. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that many material contradictions found in the evidence of P.W.2, were not adverted to properly by the court below; that the court below failed to note the improvements and embellishments caused by P.W.2 during the course of his evidence over the statements made by him in the complaint and the statements made by him before the Investigating Officer recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; that the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.3 alone for corroborating the evidence of P.W.2 regarding preparation of Mahazar in the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing and the occurrence in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem; that the court below failed to note that there were many imponderables and improbabilities in the story of the prosecution; that the court below failed to properly appreciate the fact that P.W.2, who admittedly suffered heavy loss due to the action taken by the officers of the Geology and Mines department, including the accused persons, on previous occasions, had every reason to concoct a case to wreak vengeance on the accused persons when the lorry engaged by him for transporting limestone without being accompanied by proper document was intercepted and impounded by the accused persons and that the court below would have arrived at a conclusion that the charges levelled against the appellants were not proved beyond reasonable doubt had it appreciated the evidence in proper perspective.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants contended further that fair play required investigation of the case by a different officer than the one who organised and conducted the trap operation; that in this case, P.W.14, who received the complaint and registered the case based on Ex.P2-complaint not only organized and conducted the trap operation but also took the entire investigation of the case and submitted a charge-sheet; that the court below failed to see that P.W.14 was very much interested in P.W.2, which is obvious from the fact that evidence has been led to the effect that during the course of trap operation itself, he collected the release order from the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines and handed over the same to P.W.2 to enable him to get the release of the lorry and that the same would show the bias with which he had acted in investigating the case.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the evidence of P.W.2 to the effect that he met the first and second accused on 02.09.1989 itself in the guest house of India Cements Factory to make an appeal to them to get the lorry released and that at that point of time, the first accused demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification, could not be true in the light of the contradictions elicited with reference to his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and in the light of the contradictions between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.9 and the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.13, as to when and from whom the de-facto complainant, namely P.W.2 got the information regarding seizure of the vehicle; that the court below did not properly appreciate the defence plea of the appellants that the de-facto complainant (P.W.2), with a view to wreak vengeance, engineered a device by agreeing to purchase Tuberculosis seals to the tune of Rs.200/- each from A1 and A2 and Rs.100/- from Gunasekaran/A3 with the promise to make payment when he would collect the release order and thereafter approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to get them trapped when the said amount would be paid projecting it to be an illegal gratification; that the court below failed to see that similar method was devised by him against A4 by borrowing a sum of Rs.200/- from him as he was running short of such amount for making payment of the penalty and thereafter made arrangements for his arrest when the same was repaid by him; that the court below failed to note that the defence plea need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that it shall be enough to prove the same by preponderance of probabilities; that the court below failed to consider the documentary evidence regarding the entrustment of the job of selling TB seals in proper perspective; that the court below should have arrived at a conclusion that the charges made against the appellants were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court ought to have acquitted the accused/appellants herein holding them entitled to the benefit of doubt. According to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the judgment of the court below convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be sustained in law and the appellants are entitled to their acquittal in the hands of the appellate forum.
11. The submissions made by Mr.R.Muniappraj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) representing the respondent in reply to the above said contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant were also heard and this court paid its anxious considerations to the same. The materials on record, including the evidence, were also taken into consideration by this court.
12. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants, who figured as A1, A2 and A4 and one Gunasekaran, the deceased third accused demanded illegal gratification for expediting the issue of the release order directing the release of the lorry bearing Regn.No.TDM 2365, which had been detained at Sankari police station when it was found used for transporting limestone without valid permit and subsequently received such illegal gratification from the de-facto complainant, namely P.W.2-Sekaran. Admittedly, the lorry bearing Regn.No.TDM 2365 was intercepted by the officials of Geology and Mines department on 02.09.1989 at about 3.30 p.m near Sankari Police Station, as it was used for transporting limestone without valid permit and the same was handed over to the police in Sankari Police Station for safe custody till necessary orders would be passed by the District Collector. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the said lorry was used for transporting limestone from the quarry of P.W.2. The despatch slip and Proforma invoice used by the lorry driver for transporting limestone have been produced and marked as Exs.D1 and D2 on the side of the accused. Though the vehicle number has been noted in the said documents, the date and time of despatch have not been noted therein. That is the reason why the vehicle was intercepted and impounded by the officials of the Geology and Mines department.
13. The appellants/accused 1, 2 and 4 are alleged to have committed the offence of taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged act amounting to the said offence is the receipt of a sum of Rs.200/- by each one of the appellants/A1, A2 and A4 on 11.09.1989 for expediting the issue of release order directing the release of the lorry impounded by the officials of Geology and Mines department for transporting limestone without valid permit on 02.09.1989. For the very same act, the appellants have been convicted and punished not only for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but also an offence under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the above said Act.
14. The charge No.1 framed as the sole charge at the first instance was to the effect that each one of the appellants demanded a sum of Rs.200/- on 08.09.1989 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a reward for expediting the issue of release order directing the release of the lorry bearing Regn.No.TDM 2365, which had been detained at Sankari police station by the second appellant and others on 02.09.1989 for having transported limestone without valid permit and that they received the said amount as illegal gratification from the de-facto complainant, namely P.W.2-Sekaran, between 3.05 p.m and 3.30 p.m on 11.09.1989 in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem. The second charge, namely the charge framed as an additional charge on 16.10.2000 is to the effect that the above said act of receiving illegal gratification also amounted to an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The first charge contains two components:- 1) an attempt made to receive illegal gratification by demanding payment of Rs.200/- on 08.09.1989 from P.W.2 by each one of the appellants and 2) the receipt of a sum of Rs.200/- on 11.09.1989 between 3.05 and 3.30 p.m at the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem, as a reward for expediting the issue of release order. The second charge comprises the second component of first charge alone. Therefore, the prosecution case regarding the alleged attempt made to get illegal gratification on 08.09.1989 and the receipt of illegal gratification on 11.09.1989 have to be dealt with with reference to the evidence adduced regarding both the aspects.
15. Ex.P2 is the original complaint lodged by P.W.2 on 11.09.1989 based on which Ex.P20-First Information Report was prepared by P.W.14 and the case was registered. The contents of the complaint are to the effect that the lorry bearing Regn. No.TDM 2365 was seized by A1 and A2 when the lorry was found used for transporting limestone with defective permit and they had entrusted the same to the police at Sankari police station on 02.09.1989; that the appellants 1 and 2 demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification for not registering a case against the driver; that when he expressed his inability to pay such amount, they registered a case against the driver of the said lorry; that the District Collector passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs.1,395/-; that on 08.09.1989 at the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem, the appellants 1 and 2 informed him that they would get the release order directing the release of the lorry, if he would pay the fine and produce the challan; that at the same time each one of the appellants 1 to 3 demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification; that the deceased third accused (Gunasekaran) demanded a sum of Rs.100/- for himself; that on 11.09.1989 when he produced the challan evidencing payment of fine after remitting the same in the State Bank of India; that the appellants and the deceased third accused again insisted upon complying with their demands in the evening of 11.09.1989 and that not willing to part with money as illegal gratification to the appellants and the deceased third accused, he approached the Vigilance and Anti-corruption police with a complaint for necessary action. Though there was a general allegation that the appellants 1 and 2 demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification for not registering a case against the driver of the lorry, the complaint is silent about the date and time of such demand and the place at which such demand was made. However, during the course of trial P.W.2 seems to have made a lot of improvements over the particulars furnished in the complaint and also his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Of course, the complaint or the first information report prepared in the printed format could not be expected to be an encyclopedia of the case. However, material omissions in the complaint do have their effect on the prosecution case when acceptable explanations are not forthcoming. If it is a mere omission in the first information report alone, then much importance need not be shown to such omission. On the other hand, if such omission is also found in the statement of the concerned witness recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C, then the omission becomes all the more important. P.W.2, while deposing before the court, he ventured to state that on 02.09.1989 itself at about 5.30 p.m he met the appellants 1 and 2 in the India Cement Factory guest house and requested them to help him, whereupon the first appellant demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- and the second appellant also informed him that no one would help him if he would come with bare hands. This particular allegation is an improvement over the complaint and his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said contradiction with reference to the omission in which statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C has been successfully elicited by the learned counsel for the accused persons before the trial court in the manner known to law. Before ever the omissions found in Section 161 statement was sought to be proved to contradict P.W.2, his attention was drawn to such omissions by specifically cross-examining him pointing out such omissions. Thereafter such omissions were proved by the admission of the investigating officer who deposed as P.W.14, during his cross-examination. The above said contradiction assumes importance in the light of the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.13, as to when and from whom P.W.2 got the information regarding the impounding of the lorry. According to the evidence of P.W.2, the lorry driver himself came to the house of P.W.2 and informed him of the seizure of the vehicle by the appellants 1 and 2 and on receipt of such information at about 4.15 p.m on 02.09.1989, P.W.2 went to India Cement factory guest house and met the first and second appellants at about 5.15 p.m. It is his specific evidence that the lorry driver Nagarajan came to the house of P.W.2 at 4.15 p.m and briefed him regarding the seizure of the lorry. The said evidence of P.W.2 stands falsified by the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.13. P.W.13-Nagarajan is the driver of the lorry referred to by P.W.2. The lorry was seized, as per Ex.P7 file, at 3.30 p.m on 02.09.1989. The seized lorry with limestone was entrusted for safe custody in Sankari police station at 4.00 p.m, as per the evidence of p.w.12, the then Inspector of Police, Sankari and Ex.P13-Para register.
16. P.W.13 in his evidence would state that after the lorry was seized by the authorities and entrusted to the police at Sankari police station, he gave informatin to the owner of the lorry, namely P.W.9-Nallathambi and he got the release order at 4.30 p.m after a week from the date of seizure. It is not his evidence that he went to the house of P.W.2 and informed him. On the other hand, it is his evidence that he informed his employer, namely P.W.9 over phone at about 5.30 p.m on 02.09.1989. On the other hand, P.W.9-Nallathambi has been examined as the owner of the said lorry. It is his evidence that the driver Nagarajan came to his mechanic shed, situated at a distance of 10 K.M from Sankari police station, at about 6 or 7.00 p.m on 02.09.1989 and thereafter P.W.9 went to the house of P.W.2 to inform him. It is the evidence of P.W.9 that, after informing him, the driver went to the place wherein the lorry had been parked and he (P.W.9) alone went to the house of P.W.2 and informed him. If the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 13 are taken into account, it is quite improbable for P.W.2 to have gone to India Cements Factory guest house at 5.30 p.m to request appellant No.1 to help him in the matter.
17. Regarding the alleged demand made by A1 and the indirect demand made by A2 on 02.09.1989 at about 5.30 p.m in the guest house of India Cements Factory, there is no other evidence excepting the oral testimony of P.W.2. The testimony of P.W.2 is also found to contradict with Ex.P2 complaint and his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The veracity of P.W.2 in this regard has become more questionable in the light of the above cited evidence of P.Ws.9 and 13. Therefore, this court has to come to a necessary conclusion that the alleged demand made by A1, who was supported by A2 as per the evidence of P.W.2 is highly improbable.
18. We have already seen that P.W.2 has made improvements while deposing as a witness before the trial court over his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and that his evidence regarding the alleged demand made on 02.09.1989 at about 5.30 p.m at India Cements Factory guest house is unbelievable and the same shall have the effect of eroding the credibility of his evidence. To corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the alleged demand made on 02.09.1989 itself, P.W.7-Kandasamy was examined. He was functioning as Special Revenue Inspector, Tiruchengode Taluk (Mines). According to his evidence, the second appellant/second accused and P.W.7 intercepted the lorry TDM 2365, seized it and entrusted the same to the police for safe custody. But as per the prosecution case, the first and second appellant/first and second accused seized the vehicle and entrusted the same to the police for safe custody. P.W.7 made an attempt to show that soon after the lorry was seized and entrusted to the police for safe custody, they went to India Cement Factory guest house and met the first appellant/A1 at 4.00 to 4.30 p.m on 02.09.1989 and that within 15 minutes therafter, he left the guest house. It is his further evidence that during that period of 15 minutes, he found P.W.2-Sekaran in the guest house. According to P.W.2’s evidence, he went to the guest house and met first and second accused at 5.30 p.m. P.W.7 would say he saw P.W.2 in the said guest house between 4.15 to 4.45 p.m. Furthermore, P.W.7, in his evidence, regarding the occurrence that took place on 11.09.1989, would state that between 12.00 noon and 12.30 p.m, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption police came to their office, namely the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem. But the complaint itself was given and the case was registered at 1.30 p.m. According to the evidence of P.W.2, he went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing at 2.15 p.m and lodged a complaint with P.W.14, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police and they left the office of P.W.14 at 3.00 p.m to proceed towards the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem. P.W.3 would say that on 11.09.1989 at 2.00 p.m he was invited to the office of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption over phone and he reached the said office at 2.15 p.m. A comparison of evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 will show that before ever P.W.2 lodged a complaint with P.W.14, P.W.14 would have contacted P.W.3 and invited him to his office. According to P.W.14, P.W.2 came to his office at 1.30 p.m and lodge the complaint, whereupon the case was registered. The evidence of P.W.14 is to the effect that P.W.3 and the other attestor, by name Ganesan came to the office of P.W.14 at 2.05 p.m and after preparation of the mahazars in his office, all of them left the office at 2.55 p.m towards the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem. The evidence of P.W.7 in this regard is quite contra to the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.14. The evidence of P.W.7 that the Vigilance and Anti-corruption police came to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines at about 12.00 noon to 12.30 p.m, cannot be correct and that for one reason or other, he has been made to support the case of the prosecution by deposing falsely that he saw P.W.2 in the India Cement Factory guest house at about 4.15 to 4.45 p.m on 02.09.1989. We have already seen that P.W.2 could not have gone to the India Cement Factory guest house at 5.30 p.m and met A1 and A2 in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.9 & 13. Therefore, we have to discard the evidence of P.W.7 as the same is of doubtful veracity and hence unreliable.
19. In the light of the above said observation, P.W.2’s evidence regarding the other aspects of the case, namely alleged demand made on 08.09.1989 by the appellants and the deceased Gunasekaran (A3) in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem has to be considered. Regarding the alleged demand on 08.09.1989 also there is no other evidence excepting the interested testimony of P.W.2. If at all such a demand was made by all the appellants and the deceased third accused Gunasekaran on 08.09.1989 itself and P.W.2 was not willing to make payment of such illegal gratification, he would have immediately approached the Vigilance and Anti-corruption wing with a complaint. But he has not done so. On the other hand, he got the order imposing penalty, made payment of penalty by remitting the penalty amount in the State Bank of India, produced the challan in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem, ensured the issue of the release order directing the release of the lorry along with limestone loaded on it and only thereafter chose to lodge a complaint with P.W.14. It is the clear admission of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution that once a lorry is seized for transporting minerals without valid permit and entrusted to the police for safe custody, thereafter the officials of the Geology and Mines department (the appellants) have no power to release the vehicle without the order of the District Collector and that the District Collector alone has the power to order the release of the vehicle. It is also a clear admission made by P.W.2 that, in the past, on several occasions the lorries loaded with limestone from his quarry were intercepted and impounded and on all those occasions orders were passed levying the royalty and penalty and that on payment of such penalty release orders directing the release of the vehicles were issued. It is also an admission made by the prosecution witnesses that a time of one week or 10 days will be needed for releasing vehicles in such cases. It is obvious from the evidence of P.W.2 that he was very much aware of the fact that the vehicle would be released, if the penalty imposed was paid without there being any necessity to beg for the influence of the appellants. He was also very much aware of the fact that after the seizure of the vehicle and entrustment of the same to the police for safe custody, the appellants could not refrain from registering a case against the driver and could not release the vehicle. From Ex.P7 file, it is obvious that the draft proceedings were prepared on 05.09.1989, signed on 06.09.1989 and the same was approved by the District Collector on 11.09.1989. The penalty (compounding fees) fixed in the said order, namely Rs.1,395/- was remitted on 11.09.1989 itself. Therefore, it is quite obvious that only after ensuring that the release order was passed, P.W.2 chose to lodge a complaint with P.W.14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, if at all the appellants wanted P.W.2 to make payment of illegal gratification for expediting the issue of release order, they would not have chosen to get the order imposing penalty (compounding fees) before ever they could collect the amount demanded as illegal gratification from P.W.2. On the other hand, it is quite obvious that even before 2.00 p.m on 11.09.1989, P.W.2 was able to make payment of the compounding fee by remitting the same in the State Bank of India and produce the challan in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem for getting necessary orders for the release of the vehicle.
20. So far as the alleged occurrence that took place in the morning on 11.09.1989 is concerned, we do have no other evidence excepting the evidence of P.W.2 to prove the case of the prosecution that before the complaint was lodged with P.W.14 on 11.09.1989, the appellant once again demanded payment of Rs.200/- to each one of them as illegal gratification. According to P.W.2’s evidence, he went to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem on 08.09.1989 and met the deceased third accused Gunasekaran, who informed him that he received a phone message from the camp office of the Collector that the file was ready, but there was no peon to go and bring the file and that at that juncture, the third appellant (fourth accused Doraisamy) volunteered to go to the camp office and bring the file. According to his evidence, only under such circumstances the fourth accused (third appellant) went to the camp office of the Collector and brought the file on 08.09.1989. P.W.2 wanted to project a case that the third appellant (fourth accused Doraisamy) demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification for the above said service rendered by him.
21. In order to show that it was the fourth accused Doraisamy, who went to the camp office of the Collector to bring the file relating to the lorry seized in this case, P.W.5-Varadappan was examined. He was employed as an office assistant in the said office at the relevant point of time. It is his evidence he has stated that there were three office assistants and one watchman employed in the said office and that according to convenience, any one of the four would go to the camp office of the Collector to bring the files. It is his further evidence in the chief examination that, on 08.09.1989, in the morning itself, he went to the camp office of the District Collector and enquired whether the files sent from the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines had been signed; that the reply was in the negative and hence he returned to his office at 11.00 a.m; that thereafter the third appellant/fourth accused Doraisamy went to the camp office of the Collector to bring the file relating to P.W.2. However, during cross-examination, he pleaded ignorance as to the person who went to the camp office of the District Collector on 08.09.1989 to bring the file after he returned from the said office. Therefore, the said evidence of P.W.5 is also not helpful to the prosecution to prove that it was the third appellant/fourth accused Doraisamy who went to the camp office of the Collector and brought the file relating to the lorry bearing Regn. No.TDM 2365. The third appellant/fourth accused has denied the said evidence of P.W.2 as false when he was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. There is nothing to show that the third appellant/fourth accused was the person who went to the camp office of the District Collector and brought the file relating to the impounded lorry bearing Regn. No.TDM 2365. Furthermore, evidence has been adduced through P.W.2 and P.W.4, the then Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem, to the effect that the file relating to the impounded lorry was sent to the Collector on 06.09.1989 and the same was returned to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines with the approval of the Collector on 08.09.1989. But, there is nothing in the file marked as Ex.P7 to show that the Collector had passed the approval order on 08.09.1989 itself. On the other hand, there are initials showing approval of the draft order bearing the date 11.09.1989. Even P.W.4 does not assert that the District Collector had approved the draft order on 08.09.1989 itself. His evidence is to the effect that it seemed the Collector had approved the draft on 08.09.1989. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that he got the order imposing the penalty (compounding fees) on 08.09.1989 but he could not remit the penalty as it was late in the evening whereby the bank had been closed and that hence he remitted the fine on 11.09.1989. The original file containing the approval order passed by the District Collector with the date 08.09.1989 has not been produced. Therefore, this court has to accept the contention raised on behalf of the fourth accused/third appellant that the story of the third appellant/fourth accused going along with P.W.2 to to the camp office of the District Collector and bringing the file was one invented for the purpose of implicating him also, has got to be countenanced. The discrepancies pointed out supra, would at least give rise to a reasonable suspicion regarding the prosecution version in this regard.
22. P.W.11 has been examined as one of the persons, who had gone to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines for getting permission from the said department for levelling his land. It is his evidence that when he went to the said office and enquired with the second appellant/second accused regarding the procedure for getting permit, he was informed by him that he should produce chitta, Adangal and FMB along with a challan for the payment of Rs.200/- and that he utilised the services of the third appellant/fourth accused Doraisamy to get the amount remitted in the bank. According to his evidence, he gave Rs.200/- for remittance and a further sum of Rs.10/- as auto fare to the third appellant/fourth accused and that he promptly remitted the amount in the bank and gave him the counterfoil of the challan. The said evidence of P.W.11 does not have any incriminating material against any one of the accused including the third appellant/fourth accused. In fact, the evidence of P.W.11 shows that the third appellant/fourth accused helped him by remitting the amount in the bank without claiming anything for him for the services rendered by him. Therefore, the attempt made on the side of the prosecution that the third appellant/fourth accused demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification for the service rendered by him by going over to the camp office of the Collector and bringing the file relating to the impounded vehicle has ended in its failure.
23. So far we have seen that P.W.2 could not have met the appellants 1 and 2/first and second accused on 02.09.1989 at about 5.30 p.m in the India Cements Factory guest house; that the alleged demand made by A1 and A2 has not been proved and that the subsequent demands allegedly made by the appellants on the subsequent days upto and inclusive of 08.09.1989 could not be true. In support of the said inference, yet another aspect can be cited. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the day subsequent to the occurrence, namely 03.09.1989 was a holiday and hence he met the first appellant/first accused on 04.09.1989 (Monday) and the first appellant after narrating him the procedure, instructed him to meet the deceased third accused (Gunasekaran) who demanded a sum of Rs.100/- when P.W.2 met him and in turn instructed P.W.2 to meet the second appellant/second accused. It is his further evidence that on 04.09.1989 itself, he met the second appellant/second accused and the first appellant/first accused in succession and each one of the them demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as illegal gratification. The said evidence of P.W.2 will show that P.W.2 is totally a liar and he is not a trustworthy and reliable witness. During cross-examination, at one place he would plead ignorance as to whether 04.09.1989 was a government holiday. However, he would assert that he met the appellants 1 and 2 and the deceased Gunasekaran (accused 1 to 3) on 04.09.1989 and all the three demanded illegal gratification at that point of time. It is also his assertion that he had stated in his complaint and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C that he met the accused 1 to 3 on 04.09.1989, which in fact is not true, as found from the evidence of P.W.14, Ex.P2 and Ex.P8-Attendance Register. From Ex.P8-Attendance Register, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that 04.09.1989 was a government holiday on account of Vinayagar Chathurthi. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 that he met accused 1 to 3 on 04.09.1989 and all the three accused demanded illegal gratification on the said day, does not have a semblance of truth in it. In the light of the above said discussions, this court has to come to the conclusion that the alleged demand made on 02.09.1989, 04.09.1989, 06.09.1989 and 08.09.1989 by appellants 1 and 2 and the deceased Gunasekaran (A1 to A3) should be held not proved beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the third appellant/fourth accused is concerned, it is not the case of P.W.2 that he made any demand on 08.09.1989 or prior to that. Therefore, ti can be safely concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a demand for illegal gratification on 08.09.1989 or prior to that date by the appellants.
24. Though this court has held that the alleged demand for illegal gratification made on 08.09.1989 and prior to that date has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, the same cannot be the position regarding the alleged receipt of money by the appellants herein and the deceased Gunasekaran on 11.09.1989. There are certain discrepancies regarding the time at which the complaint was lodged and the time at which the witness were brought to the office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing before P.W.14 proceeded to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem to execute the trap operation planned by him. But those are insignificant and trivial, so far as the conduct of trap operation is concerned. All the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution regarding the said occurrence have spoken with one voice without material contradictions, as to what happened just before the Vigilance and Anti-corruption police arrived at the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines and after their arrival. Clear evidence has been let in to show that the trap operation planned, had been executed properly. As planned, P.W.2 went to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines along with P.W.3 at about 3.00 p.m on 11.09.1989. Clear evidence has been led to the effect that P.W.2 paid a sum of Rs.200/- to each one ofthe appellants 1 to 3 herein and a sum of Rs.100/- to the deceased third accused (Gunasekaran). The currency notes given to the accused persons were the currency notes coated with phenolphthalein powder in the office of P.W.14. The serial numbers of the currency notes had also been noted in Ex.P3-Mahazar prepared in the office of P.W.14. Soon after the receipt of the said amounts by the accused persons, P.W.2, as per the plan, climbed down to the ground floor and gave the signal to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption police by changing his wrist watch from left hand to right hand whereupon P.W.14 and his team of officers entered the office, rounded up the accused persons and recovered not only the above said amount paid by P.W.2 to the accused persons but also more amounts available with the staff members working in the said office and also a sum of Rs.2,001/- which had been thrown on the ground through the window. The fact that some of the staff members had chosen to throw currency notes worth Rs.2,001/- out of the window on fear of being caught by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption police, shall not be enough to prove that the appellants had received illegal gratification.
25. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants had in their possession or in their residence cash, valuable security or properties exceeding the known sources of their income. That is not the charge made against the appellants. Even a sum of Rs.1,080/- recovered from P.W.8-Mohamed Moideen was later on returned to him as he had accounted for the said amount. So far as the appellants are concerned, they do not deny the receipt of a sum of Rs.200/- by each one of them from P.W.2 and a sum of Rs.100/- by the deceased third accused Gunasekaran from P.W.2. But, they have come forward with an explanation that the appellants 1 and 2 and the deceased third accused (Gunasekaran) had been entrusted with Tuberculosis seals for sale; that P.W.2, after assuring the release of the lorry loaded with limestone, volunteered to purchase T.B. Seals worth Rs.200/- from each one of the appellants 1 and 2 and Rs.100/- from the deceased third accused (Gunasekaran) during the morning session of 11.09.1989 and promised to pay the amount when he would come in the evening to collect the release order and that thereafter he had made arrangements for trapping them when they received the said amount towards the price of the T.B. Seals sold to him.
26. So far as the third appellant/fourth accused is concerned, it is his contention that when he went to the Mines office for night duty on 10.09.1989, he took along with him a sum of Rs.735/- for purchasing rice; that on 11.09.1989 in the morning, P.W.2, who was known to him for about 10 years, requested him to lend a sum of Rs.200/- for paying penalty with a promise to return the same in the evening; that believing his words he lent him a sum of Rs.200/- and the said amount was returned by P.W.2 in the afternoon and that the Vigilance and Anti-corruption police seized the above said amount paid by P.W.2 and also the remaining amount of Rs.535/- he had kept with him. The said explanation offered by the third appellant, cannot be brushed aside as untenable or without having any basis. Clear evidence has been adduced through D.Ws.1 and 2 that they had been entrusted with the job of selling T.B. Seals and that they would request the persons coming to the office to purchase the T.B. Seals without coercing or without demanding such purchase in return for any orders to be issued in their favour. The entire office correspondence regarding entrustment of anti-T.B. Seals for sale have been produced and marked on the side of the accused persons as Ex.D3 to D5. From Ex.D3, it is noticed that a communicatin was addressed on 18.08.1989 itself stating that though 5,000 anti-T.B. Seals worth Rs.2,500/- were allotted, 6,250/- seals worth Rs.3,125/- had been received in the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem with a direction to sell the seals and send the amount by crossed bank draft. The communication of the District Collector, Salem dated 03.06.1989 is also available in the file marked as Ex.D3. The official memorandum of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem dated 18.08.1989 is also available in the said file. As per the said official memorandum the first and second appellants were allotted T.B. Seals worth Rs.250/- and Rs.300/- respectively, whereas the assistant, namely the deceased third accused was allotted T.B. Seals worth Rs.200/-. Ex.D4 is the list of papers taken from the seat of the first appellant by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Mines) on 13.09.1989. It shows 100 T.B. Seals to the value of Rs.50/- was also taken from him. That shows the first accused had sold 400 seals worth Rs.200/-. Even P.W.11, a visitor to the office admitted that he went to the Mines office several times and on those occasions, the employees employed in the said office requested him to purchase T.B. Seals, if he could afford to do so and that on those occasions he informed them that he would purchase the T.B. Seals whenever he would come again.
27. P.W.4, the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem has also admitted that T.B.Seals had been entrusted to accused 1 to 3, but pleaded ignorance as to how much T.B. Seals were sold by them and to whom they were sold. It is also admitted by him that the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Mines), who took charge from the first appellant/first accused had received T.B. Seals worth Rs.50/- as the unsold T.B. Seals from the first appellant/first accused and T.B. Seals worth Rs.100/- were received from the deceased third accused (Gunasekaran). It will make it probable that the first appellant and the deceased third accused had sold T.B. Seals worth Rs.200/- and Rs.100/- respectively to P.W.2. Similarly, the contention of the second appellant/ second accused that he sold T.B. Seals worth Rs.200/- to P.W.2 is also probable. According to the appellants, P.W.2 came to the office of the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem with a plan to wreak vengeance on them for intercepting and impounding the vehicle loaded with limestone belonging to him, in execution of such plan, he cunningly volunteered to purchase T.B. Seals worth Rs.200/- from each one of the appellants 1 and 2 and T.B. Seals worth Rs.100/- from the deceased third accused (Gunasekaran), got the T.B. Seals with a promise to make the payment in the afternoon when he would come for collecting the order directing the release of the vehicle and thereafter he gave the complaint to the police paving the way for the arrest of the accused persons. The said contention seems to be quite probable. So far as the third appellant/fourth accused is concerned, the case of the appellants is that in order to wreak vengeance on him also P.W.2 borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from him in the morning on 11.09.1989 promising to repay the same in the evening on the same day and thus built his foundation for trapping of the accused persons when they received said amounts from P.W.2 at about 3.00 p.m on the same day.
28. It is the clear admission of P.W.2 that on six or seven previous occasions also his lorry loaded with limestone were intercepted and impounded and on all those occasions he paid the penalty (compounding fees) and got the lorry with the limestone released. It is also his clear admission that once the lorry is seized and entrusted to the police for safe custody, thereafter without the order of the Collector, the lorry won’t be released. When that is the case and the compounding fees shall be a little more than Rs.1,000/-, it is quite improbable that the accused persons would have demanded at the first instance a sum of Rs.1,000/- and thereafter a sum of Rs.700/- as illegal gratification for expediting the issue of release order. It is quite surprising to note that the watchman demanded an amount equal to the amount demanded by Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector as illegal gratification for him, whereas the clerk, namely the deceased A3 (Gunasekaran) demanded only a sum of Rs.100/-. It is quite improbable that they would have demanded such meagre amounts as illegal gratifications.
29. A question may arise as to why P.W.2 should foist a case against a watchman, namely the third appellant/ fourth accused. The answer is found in the evidence of P.W.2 itself. P.W.2 clearly admitted that he did not want to make payment of illegal gratification to any one of the accused persons. At the same time he admitted that he had grievance against the accused persons as he suffered heavy monetary loss on the occasions of seizure of his lorry loaded with limestone even prior to the occurrence. It is his clear evidence that he suffered a loss to the tune of several lakhs through the third appellant/fourth accused. Therefore, there is no wonder in P.W.2 implicating the third appellant/fourth accused also. In this regard, it must be noticed that the evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that only after the payment of illegal gratification to the accused persons, the file was sent to the Deputy Director for his signature in the release order. On the other hand, it is the evidence of P.W.4 that he saw the file containing the order of the Collector dated 08.09.1989 on 11.09.1989 and immediately he sent the file to the section with instructions that the penalty should be paid and the challan should be annexed to the file. From the said evidence of P.W.4, it is obvious that P.W.2 would have been informed of the order directing payment of penalty only on 11.09.1989 and not on 08.09.1989 as contended by him. It is also his evidence that he had signed the release order on 11.09.1989 in the morning itself. Therefore, it is improbable that the accused would have demanded illegal gratification and received it at 3.00 p.m for getting the release order prepared, as the same had already been prepared and signed by P.W.4.
30. Yet another aspect should also be mentioned. As per the evidence of P.W.4, P.W.2 gave a representation on 05.09.1989 to the Deputy Director, Geology and Mines, Salem (P.W.4) praying for the release of the vehicle. But the representation enclosed in the file marked as Ex.P7 contains the date 02.09.1989. It shows P.W.2 has made an attempt to show that the representation was made on 02.09.1989 itself. In addition to that P.W.2 seems to have suppressed material facts as to the contents of the said representation in writing. It is his evidence he has stated that he had given the despatch slip with instructions to the driver to note the date and time. The despatch slips found in Ex.P7 file does not contain the date and time. The despatch slip produced by the driver at the time of seizure of the vehicle was one bearing despatch slip No.147. It was not the case of P.W.1 throughout his evidence that a wrong despatch slip was handed over by the driver of the vehicle to the authorities by mistake. On the other hand, in the written representation he had made an attempt to show that the despatch slip meant for the trip was kept with the driver whereas the despatch slip meant for use for future trips was by mistake handed over by him to the authorities of the Mines department. But, it must be noticed that the despatch slip produced by the driver was one bearing Sl.No.147 and the Proforma invoice was one bearing Sl.No.2433, whereas the despatch slip sought to be projected as the despatch slip relating to the concerned trip bears Sl.No.149 and the Proforma invoice for the said despatch slip bears Sl.No.2437. It should also be noticed that the despatch slip bearing Sl.No.149 does have a correction in the date from 03.09.1989 to 02.09.1989. The undated despatch slip bears the Sl.No.147. Whereas the other despatch slips sought to be projected as the despatch slip meant for the trip in question bears the subsequent serial number, namely 149. Therefore, the attempt made by P.W.2 in his written representation that the despatch slip produced by the driver was meant for future trip, cannot be countenanced. The very conduct of P.W.2 will show that he was transporting the mineral without proper permit and that on several occasions in the past also he did it and on those occasions he paid the penalty (compounding fees) and got the vehicle released. It is quite probable that P.W.2 became inemically deposed towards the accused persons and that is why he engineered a device by which he purchased T.B. Seals from the accused 1 to 3 and borrowed a sum of Rs.200/- from accused No.4 with the promise to pay the amounts in the evening and thus trapped them while they were receiving the said amounts. As pointed out supra, it is not necessary on the part of the accused to prove their defence case beyond reasonable doubt. Suffice for them to prove it on probabilities or at least to lead evidence capable of raising a reasonable suspicion in the prosecution story.
31. In this case, the appellants have adduced sufficient evidence to prove by preponderance of probabilities that P.W.2 had trapped them while they were receiving the amount for the T.B. Seals sold to him and the amount borrowed by him from A4 and that the evidence adduced by them are enough to create a reasonable suspicion in the theory of prosecution. Apart from that the number of discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution enumerated in the foregoing paragraphs coupled with the fact that P.W.2 is proved to be not a trustworthy and reliable witness, are enough to arrive at a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; that there are reasonable doubts regarding the prosecution story, the benefit of which should be given to the appellants/accused. The court below has failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and that is why it has come to an erroneous conclusion that the charges framed against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt. This court, for the reasons enumerated above, comes to the conclusion that the finding of the court below holding the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is discrepant, erroneous, unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside and that the appellants are entitled to be acquitted of both the offences with which they stood charged, giving the benefit of doubt.
32. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the order of sentence imposed are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of all the offences with which they stood charged and set at liberty. The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. Fine amount already paid should be refunded.
30.11.2009
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
asr/
To
1.The District Judge cum Chief
Judicial Magistrate & Special Judge, Salem
2.The Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station
Salem
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras
P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J.
asr/
PRE-DELIERY JUDGMENT
in Crl.A.No.1445/2002
30.11.2009