1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5391 of 2011 & Crl.A.(MD).No.135 of 2011 State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirappalli. .. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.5391/2011 & Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.135 of 2011 Vs. 1.M.Karikalan Assistant Section Officer, Public Department, Secretariat, Omanthurar Govt. Estate, Chennai -2. 2.S.Singam @ Shanmugasundaram ... Respondents in both the criminal original petition and in the appeal Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5391 of 2011 The criminal original petition is filed to grant leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment of acquittal, dated 12.10.2010 in Spl.C.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. Crl.A.(MD).No.135 of 2011 The criminal appeal is filed to set aside the judgment of acquittal, dated 12.10.2010 in Spl.C.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli, convict and sentence the respondents/accused. For Petitioner: Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (criminal side) For Appellant : Mr.P.Kandasamy Government Advocate (criminal side) ORDER This petition is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu represented by the Inspector of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tiruchirappalli praying for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal, dated 12.10.2010 made in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Special C.No.6 of 2002 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Tiruchirappalli. 2. The first respondent has served as Revenue Inspector (Trainee), Trichy South from 01.07.1999 to 02.11.1999 and the second respondent is a private person who was unofficially assisting the first respondent/A1 in his official work. The de facto complainant/decoy witness namely P.W.2 submitted an application before the Deputy Tahsildar, Trichy on 11.10.1999 praying for financial aid under 'Tamil Nadu Female Children Protection Scheme'. On the said application, the Deputy Tahsildar, Head Quarters, Trichy made an endorsement calling for the remarks of A1/Karikalan and handed over the same to P.W.2 with instructions to meet the jurisdictional Village Administrative Officer. 3. PW2 as per the instructions of the Deputy Tahsildar, met the Village Administrative Officer and get his statements and handed over the same to A1 on 29.10.1999 at 11.30 a.m. in his office. A1 has demanded a sum of Rs.200/- from PW2 as illegal gratification to process the said application. 4. PW2 aggrieved by the act of the first respondent/A1, has lodged a complaint on the file of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy and a case was registered in Cr.No.24 of 1999 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as the Act) on 01.11.1999. 5. Trap laying officer made preparation for laying down the trap and he also requested the service of the official witnesses to be present at the time of trap. On 01.11.1999, PW2 went to the office of A1 and met him and A1 reiterated his earlier demand and asked him to pay the bribe money to A2. A2 on receiving a sum of Rs.200/- on behalf of A1, retained a sum of Rs.100/- and put the remaining amount of Rs.100/- into the table drawer of A1. Immediately, police party went inside and conducted phenolphthalein test and proved positive in respect of both A1 and A2. A mahazar was also prepared in this regard. Thereafter, the accused were arrested. 6. The case after investigation culminated in a chargesheet charging both the accused under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and Section 12 of the Act. The said charge sheet was taken on file by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Tirchy in Special Case No.6 of 2002. The charges under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and Section 12 of the Act were framed against both the accused and they were questioned. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them. 7. The prosecution in order to sustain the case, examined PWs1 to 15 and marked exhibits P1 to P24 and also marked Mos 1 to 10. Both the accused were questioned under Section 313(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to incriminating circumstances made against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false. On behalf of the accused, no oral witness was let in and no documents were marked. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on record held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused and acquitted them. Challenging the vires of the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the prosecution has established the demand and acceptance on the side of the accused through the testimonies of PW2 and the official witnesses coupled with chemical analysis marked as Ex.P16. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant portions of the impugned judgment. 10. The Court has carefully considered the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) and also perused the impugned judgment. 11. A perusal of the impugned judgment would disclose that PW2 did not support the case of the prosecution and in fact PW2 deposed that he wrongly assumed that the first accused was demanding bribe and therefore, he went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti corruption and lodged a complaint. The Deputy Superintendent of Police asked him to give a complaint and accordingly, he written the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P8. The said complaint was read by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he told PW2 that only if he writes the complaint as per his dictation, the case can be filed and he has also made some alteration in the complaint. The Deputy Superintendent of Police has also gave a paper to PW2 and asked him to give a complaint by carrying out correction made in the earlier complaint and accordingly, he has written the complaint. It was further deposed by PW2 that the earlier complaint lodged by him was destroyed. 12. Taking into consideration the said oral testimony of PW2, the trial Court found that the demand made by A1 was not at all been proved. The trial Court has also taking into consideration of the fact that the investigating officer in his oral evidence, has also admitted that the case under Section 7 of the Act has not at all been made out. 13. The trial Court further taken into consideration of the fact that PW2 - private witness did not support the case of the prosecution and found many infirmities in the case projected by the prosecution and arrived at a finding that the prosecution has failed to probablise the case. 14. This Court on independent application of mind and consideration of the impugned judgment, is of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity or error apparent on the face of record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 14. In the result, it is not a fit case where leave to file appeal is to be granted in the criminal original petition. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. Consequently, the criminal appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar(LA) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1. The Inspector of Police, Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Tiruchy 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy to:- The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai jikr rl/5c – 29.6.2011 Order made in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5391 of 2011 & Crl.A.(MD).No.135 of 2011 15.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/