Madras High Court says there is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court in convicting an accused.
Title: V. Radhakrishnan. Vs. The State.
Decided On: September 19, 2023.
Crl.A.No.627 of 2016.
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran.
Facts:
The accused while serving as VAO of Kottathupatty Village, demand of illegal gratification of Rs.2000/- in two instalments of Rs.1000/- by the accused for name transfer in the Patta was lodged on 24.11.2003 at 9.30 a.m. After registration of the case, trap was laid. At about 15.15 hours the accused demanded and accepted Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant. The said transaction was witnessed by the shadow witness Paramasivam.The phenolphthalein smeared currency of one 500 Rupees notes and five hundred rupees notes were recovered from the accused which was kept in the left outer shirt pocket. The trial Court framed charges under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C Act. The trial Court accepting the case of the defacto complainant regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.1000/- as bribe by the accused on 24.11.2003, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 1 year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo 6 months S.I for the offence under Section 7 of P.C Act and to undergo 2 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo S.I for 6 months. This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the order passed by the Special Judge, Special Court for trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
It is a case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- smeared with the phenolphthalein and marked under the Entrustment Mahazar was recovered from the accused under Seizure Mahazar. The currency recovered from the accused tallied with the currency number found in the Entrustment Mahazar. In addition, the hands of the accused was tested with the Sodium Carbonate solution. The solution turned red indicates handling of phenolphthalein. The shirt pocket portion where the money was kept by the accused also subjected to the phenolphthalein test and proved positive. The trial Court has also found that there is no corroboration for the allegations of second demand on 22.11.2003. However, the third demand on the day of the trap and successful completion of the trap leads to the inference of the previous demand. The third demand and proof of third demand cannot be an inference for the earlier demand unless and until, it is proved beyond doubt. In this case the second demand on 22.11.2003 lacks corroboration, but it does not disproved the case of the prosecution in respect of the demand on 24.11.2003 and the receipt of the same by the accused. The defence taken by the accused that the money was planted in his shirt pocket is not probable, since not only his shirt pocket portion, but both of his hands were found positive for phenolphthalein. Unless and until the accused had received the money and counted it before keeping it in his pocket, it is impossible for both his hands to contact phenolphthalein. Neither PW.2 nor PW.3 had any animosity against this appellant to depose facts which is not true. Inspite of incise cross examination of these two witnesses, their credibility has not impeached. Therefore, the evidence of 2nd witness corroborated by the eye witness 3rd witness of the prosecution for demand and acceptance of Rs.1,000/- on 24.11.2003 during the trap besides scientific proof. Recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused prove the case of the prosecution to the core. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant. There is no ground to interfere in the judgment of the trial Court.
Conclusion:
The Court Concludes that this Criminal Appeal shall be dismissed and the trial Court conviction and sentence shall be confirmed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.