PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AT CHENNAI -104 Present: Tmt.S.Priya, B.A., B.L., (Hons)., M.L., Special Judge Special Court for P.C.Act Cases, Chennai Friday, this the 14th day of March 2025
IN THE SPECIAL COURT FOR THE CASES UNDER
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AT CHENNAI -104
Present: Tmt.S.Priya, B.A., B.L., (Hons)., M.L.,
Special Judge
Special Court for P.C.Act Cases, Chennai
Friday, this the 14th day of March 2025
C.C.No. 6/2015 in
Cr.No. 14/2014/AC/CC-I
CNR.No.TNCH08-000006-2015
State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-corruption,
City Special Unit-I,
Chennai- 600028. ….Complainant
/Vs./
1. Tr.Mohanasundaram,
M/A-58 years,
S/o.Ganesan,
District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai Collectorate, Chennai.
2. Selvi.Revathy, F/A-43,
D/o.Jayamoorthy,
No.3/15, Begam, 5th Street, Royapettah, Chennai.
(Private Individual)
….Accused 1 & 2
Charge : Accused No.(1) – U/s.7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988.
Accused No.(2) – U/s.12 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 r/w.109 IPC.
Answer of the Accused 1 & 2 : Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Judge : Found guilty.
Court’s conviction or order : In result, 1st Accused is found guilty of
commission of offence u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The 1st Accused is sentenced to under go four years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 3months simple imprisonment u/s 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The 1st accused is sentenced to under go five years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 6-months simple imprisonment U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C Act 1988, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for each offence shall run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the 1st Accused if any is ordered to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Total Fine amount
Rs.1,00,000/-.
The Accused No.2 is found guilty of commission of offence u/s 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is sentenced to under go four years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 1-month simple imprisonment u/s.12 r/w.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused No.2 if any is ordered to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
M.O.1 cash Rs.60,000/- (1000×60) is ordered to be returned to the defacto complainant (PW2) and M.O.2 and M.O.3 are ordered to handover to the Investigating Agency of this case for destruction and the investigating Agency is directed to file report after destruction, after the expiry of Appeal time as per rule 262 of Criminal Rules of Practice
2019. As far as M.O.4 is concern though the Accused claimed that it is amount to be deposited in the Treasury no proof is filed hence it is ordered to be confiscated to the state.
Name of the police station and Crime No. : V & AC, Chennai-28 in
Cr.No.14/2014/AC/CC-I
Case summary
i) The period of remand of the accused 1
The period of remand of the accused 2 : 11.07.2014 to 16.07.2014
: 11.07.2014 to 16.07.2014
ii) The date of filing of the
complaint/Final report in the court : 28.04.2015 – Final report
iii) The date of committal of the case to the court of sessions : Does not arise
iv) The date of questioning of the Accused No.1 U/s.7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 U/s.12 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act,
1988 r/w.109 IPC. : 27.11.2015
v) Filing of all miscellaneous petitions and their results including the results of challenge before superior courts; except routine petitions like petitions under section 317 of the Code 1) Crl.M.P.No. 562/2014 – U/s.439 ofCr.P.C is Allowed.
2) Crl.M.P.No. 563/2014 – U/s.439 ofCr.P.C is Allowed.
3) Crl.M.P.No. 622/2014 – U/s.439 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C is Allowed.
4) Crl.M.P.No. 623/2014 – U/s.439 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C is Allowed.
4) Crl.M.P.No. 922/2015 – U/s.239 of Cr.P.C is dismissed.
Crl.M.P.No. 1405/2015 – Advance hearing petition is Allowed.
Crl.M.P.No. 1406/2015 – Surrender petition is Allowed.
Crl.M.P.No. 1407/2015 – Petition to recall warrant is Recalled.
5) Crl.M.P.No. 1866/2015 – U/s.242(3) ofCr.P.C is Allowed.
6) Crl.M.P.No. 361/2016 – U/s.91 ofCr.P.C is Closed.
7) Crl.M.P.No. 696/2020 – U/s.311 ofCr.P.C is Allowed.
8) Crl.M.P.No. 606/2023 – U/s.311 ofCr.P.C is Allowed.
9) Crl.M.P.No. 6/2024 – U/s.311 of Cr.P.Cis Allowed.
Crl.M.P.No. 277/2024 – U/s.243(2) of Cr.P.C is Allowed.
Crl.M.P.No. 278/2024 – U/s.243(2) of Cr.P.C is Allowed.
Crl.M.P.No. 746/2024 – U/s.311 of Cr.P.C is Allowed.
Crl.M.P.No.13/2025 – Eschew Petition is dismissed.
Crl.M.P.No. 35/2025 – U/s.309 of Cr.P.C is Allowed.
vi) Date of examination in chief and cross examination of a Prosecution witness Prosecution Witnesses Chief Cross
PW1 15.12.2015 29.11.2022
PW2 12.04.2016
30.01.2017
01.03.2017 08.03.2017
PW3 24.10.2017 04.03.2021
PW4 07.11.2017 07.11.2017
PW5 04.01.2018 04.01.2018
PW6 01.02.2018 01.02.2018
PW7 15.02.2018
27.03.2018 29.09.2021
15.03.2024
PW8 20.08.2018 23.10.2018
PW9 22.11.2018 21.10.2021
Pw10 06.12.2018 06.12.2018
PW11 06.12.2018 06.12.2018
PW12 25.01.2019 No Cross
PW13 25.01.2019 25.01.2019
PW14 19.02.2019 21.10.2021
PW15 11.03.2019 17.11.2021
PW16 04.01.2020 04.01.2020
PW17 12.02.2020 No Cross
PW18 20.11.2020 02.08.2022
13.02.2024
PW19 27.10.2022 27.10.2022
29.11.2023
12.12.2023
22.12.2023
vii) Date of examination in chief and cross examination of a Defence witness
Defence Witnesses Chief Cross
DW1 11.11.2024 11.12.2024
DW2 18.11.2024 13.12.2024
viii) Date of examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code 30.01.2023
viii) Details of abscondence of an accused and his appearance/production,
as the case may be and NIL
xi) Grant of stay by superior Courts and the results thereof NIL
This case was taken on file on 14.05.2015 as C.C.No.6/2015. This case came up before me for final hearing on 18.02.2025 in the presence of Tmt.K.Usharani, Special
Public Prosecutor/Deputy Legal Advisor Chennai for the Prosecution and
M/s.K.P.Anantha Krishna, K.Jayavarthini, G.Karuna Devi, R.Kavin Malar Advocates for the 1st Accused and M/s.A.Nagarajan, R.Raghuraj and S.Jeevitha Advocates for the 2nd Accused and on hearing the arguments advanced by prosecution side and no arguments made by accused even after sufficient opportunity and on perusal of entire evidence and the documents relied by either side and on available materials case records and having stood over for my consideration and reserved this case for Judgment on 04.03.2025, but subsequently in pursuant to the order of Hon’ble High Court in Crl.R.C.No.350/2025, dated.28.02.2025 both sides have been heard about the admissibility and acceptability of Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.35 and the same came to be ordered to demark and on perusal of records and as directed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras this court is delivered the following….
JUDGMENT
Tr.F.Joy Dayal, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28 has laid the final report against the Accused for the offence punishable u/s.7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 7 r/w.12 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w.109 IPC.
2. The Accused No.1 is Tr.Mohanasundaram was working as District RevenueOfficer (Stamps) at the office of the District Collectorate, Chennai from 22.08.2013 to 11.07.2014 is a Public servant as defined under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The Accused No.2 is Selvi.Revathi is working with the 1st Accused as a unauthorized employee and used to receive bribe amount as per the direction of the 1st accused and was paid Rs.10,000/- per month as salary by the 1st accused who is not a public servant and is a private paid servant of the 1st accused.
4. The Defacto Complainant Tr.Chandrababu purchased agricultural land inPanangatoor Village, Kancheepuram District, Survey No.121/F to the extent of 66 cents in the name of his wife Tmt.Paghutharivu and registered the documents with the Sub-Registrar Joint-2, Chengalpattu in D.No.3858/2013, which was sent to the 1st Accused for the purpose of fixing the Market Value as stamp duty was not paid by the witness according to the guidelines of IG Registration. Letter from the office of the DRO Stamps in Na.Ka.No.86/2013 received by the witness Tr.G.Chandrababu calling upon him to pay additional amount of Rs.6,20,928/- as difference in stamp fees. Accordingly the witness Tr.G.Chandrababu met the accused in his office on 27.02.2014 and again on 03.07.2014 and at that time the 1st accused demanded a sum of Rs.75,000/- and subsequently reduced to Rs.60,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour to the witness in the exercise of his official duty to reduce the value of the land to the tune of Rs.230/per sq.ft otherwise to fix the rate as Rs.400/- per sq.ft and thereby the 1st accused committed an offence punishable u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
5. In pursuance of the above said demand on 11.07.2014 at O/o.DRO
(Stamps), chennai between 15.10 hrs to 16.30 hrs, the 1st accused reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.60,000/- from the witness Tr.Chandrababu in the presence of official accompany witness Tmt.Manonmani and accepted the said sum of Rs.60,000/through the 2nd accused by directing the witness Tr.G.Chandrababu to hand over the amount of Rs.60,000/- as pecuniary advantage to the 2nd accused in the presence of official accompanying witness and at the same time directed the 2nd accused to receive the said amount from the said witness Tr.G.Chandrababu. The 2nd accused in turn accepted the said amount of Rs.60,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward and as pecuniary advantage and abetted the 1st accused and thereby the 1st accused committed an offence of criminal misconduct punishable u/s.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The 2nd
Accused abetted the offence of criminal misconduct punishable u/s.13(2) r/w.13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w.109 IPC.
6. Thereby the 1st accused appears to have committed an offence punishable u/s.7, 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the 2nd Accused appears to have committed an offence punishable u/s.12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w.109 IPC.
7. The copies of the entire case records were furnished to him as per section 207 of Cr.P.C. Upon hearing the argument advanced by the deputy Legal Advisor appearing for the state and the counsel for the Accused and perusal of materials produced along with the charge sheet, the court was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out as against the Accused and as such charges were framed u/s.7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d)of Prevention of Corruption act as against of the 1st Accused and u/s.12 and13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w.109 IPC as against of the 2nd Accused. Prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW19 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.35 and Material objects 1 to 4 were marked through relevant witnesses. Ex.P.32 to Ex.P.35 are ordered to be eschewed as per the order in Crl.M.P.No.13/2025, Dated.14.03.2025.
8. From the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses, the case of the prosecution is that, PW2 is the defacto complainant who is residing at Old No.10, New No.14/10, Venkateswara Avenue, Sabari Nagar, Porur, Chennai. He purchased an agricultural land of about 66 cent at Panagattur Village for a sum of Rs.20,46,000/in his wife’s name ie., Pagutharivu. The sale deed was registered on 10.04.2013 in
Document No.3858/2013 at Chengalpet Sub-Registrar Office. He paid a sum of Rs.1,84,800/- as Stamp Duty and Rs.26,500/- towards registration charges. The certified copy of the sale deed is marked as Ex.P.2. Since, there was a suspicion about the land value given by PW2 the Ex.P.2 sale deed was forwarded to DRO Stamps, Chennai for fixing the market value of the land and for collection of requisite stamp duty. PW2 was also informed by the Chengalpet SRO office, that he will receive intimation with regard to the deficit stamp duty, thereafter he should pay the deficit stamp duty and can collect the original sale deed. During October 2013, PW2 received intimation from District Revenue Office, that he should pay Rs.6,20,920/and to collect the sale deed. In this regard on 27.02.2014 at 4.00 PM PW2 met A1 and stated that the subject land is an agricultural land but it is assessed as house Plot, hence he requested to assess it as an agricultural land. For which A1 stated that if it is an agricultural land the Chitta, Adangal, Patta, Field Map and a requisition from Tmt.Pagutharivu should be produced and thereafter they will conduct filed inspection and then will decide the issue. It took 1-2 months for getting the above mentioned documents from the concerned VAO. Thereafter PW2 tried to met the A1. But, he could not meet the 1st Accused. Then he expressed his difficulty in getting the sale deed to the other applicants who were present at the DRO office for getting their sale deed after assessment of requisite stamp duty like PW2. They told PW2 that he should give bribe in percentage only then he can get the document. When PW2 asked them that how much he should pay, they told that he should pay approximately
Rs.70,000/- or Rs.80,000/-.
The relevant portion of chief examination of PW2 as follows:-
“gpd;du; m’;F vd;id nghy; bgz;o’; lhf;Fbkz;ow;fhf te;jpUe;j egu;fsplk; ehd; vd;Dila Mtzj;jpw;fhf 1. 2 khj’;fshf te;J bfhz;oUf;fpnwd; vd;W brhd;ndd;/ mtu;fs; Rk;kh te;J bfhz;oUe;jhy; Mtzj;ij bgw ,ayhJ vd;Wk;. RjtPj mog;gilapy; gzk; bfhLj;jhy; jhd; Mtzj;ij bgw ,aYk; vd;Wk; brhd;dhu;fs;/ ehd; vtt; st[ bfhLf;f ntzL; k; vd;W nfll; jw;F Rkhu; U:/70.000-= my;yJ U:/80.000-= bfhLf;f ntz;oapUf;f ntzL; k; vd;W brhd;dhu;fs;/”
9. Thereafter on 03.07.2014 PW2 met the 1st Accused at around 3.30 to 4.00
PM at his office. At that time A1 asked PW2 whether he brought relevant documents.
PW2 also handed over the documents to A1. After perusing those documents A1 told PW2 that after field inspection he will inform. Thereafter, no response from A1 so
PW2 thought that only if he gives bribe he can get the document. So, on 10.07.2014
PW2 made ready a sum of Rs.60,000/- and was thinking to meet A1. Meanwhile
PW2 also thought that if he lodge a complaint before Vigilance Police he can get the document immediately without giving any bribe. So, on 11.07.2014 he went to the Vigilance Office and met the Inspector and told him about the difficulty in getting the sale deed and also told him that they expect some bribe and requested the Inspector to help him in getting back the sale deed. The Inspector told PW2 that, it can be done but PW2 have to give a complaint as per the instruction of the IO. So, PW2 lodged the complaint Ex.P.3 as instructed by the inspector. Thereafter the inspector registered the First Information Report of this case and gave a copy of the FIR to PW2 and obtained a signature for the same. The signature of PW2 is marked as Ex.P.4. On receipt of the Complaint P.W.18 the Inspector of Police, V & A.C, Chennai registered a case in Crime No.14/AC/2014/CC-I, Dated.11.07.2014 against the accused under Section 7 of P.C. Act 1988 in FIR under Ex.P18. PW18 gave a requisition for two official witnesses to the office of the Director, Department of Economics and Statistics, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai.
10. On the basis of the requisition Ex.P.19 PW3 Tmt.R.Manonmani, Statistical
Officer, Economics and Statistic Department, Teynampet, Chennai-06 and PW7
Tr.P.V.Kubendran, Deputy Director, Economics and Statistic Department, Teynampet, Chennai-06 reported before PW18 on 11.07.2014 at 12.00 PM. On arrival of PW3 and PW7 the PW18 introduced the official witnesses to PW2 and vise versa. PW18 gave the copy of FIR and complaint to the official witnesses. They were also acquainted with the fact of the case. Thereafter, bribe money Rs.60,000/-
(Rs.1000×60) produced by PW2 was given to the Official witness PW7
Tr.P.V.Kubendran with an instruction to count. The currency note numbers were noted down by PW18 in the Entrustment mahazar. Sodium carbonate solution were prepared in two glasses. Chemical test on the normal hands of PW7 was demonstrated. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes produced by PW2 and PW7 was asked to count the currency note smeared with the Phenolphthalein powder. Chemical test on both hands of PW7 dusted with the phenolphthalein powder was demonstrated and the importance of the said test was explained to PW2 and official witnesses.
11. The currency note of Rs.60,000/- (1000X60) M.O.1 was entrusted to PW2 with an instruction to hand over the same to the accused only on reiteration of demand by the accused with further instruction to give signal by caressing his head
with his both hands (,uz;L iffshYk; jiyia jltp irif bra;a[khW
bjuptpj;jhu;) on receipt of the tainted money by the accused. The official witness PW3
Tmt.R.Manonmani was asked to accompany PW2 and to observe the happening between the accused and PW2. Entrustment Mahazar under Ex.P.5 was prepared in the presence of PW2, PW3 and PW7.
12. After the scheme for trap was finalized PW18 along with PW2, PW3 and
PW7 and Police Party proceeded to the spot near District Collector Office, Chennai. Thereafter PW2 along with PW3 met the 1st Accused on 11.07.2014 around 3.10 PM at his office and asked about the file relating to his wife Tmt.Pagutharivu to which the 1st Accused asked whether PW2 brought the amount. The relevant portion of chief examination of PW3 is as follows:-
“m/rh/2 khtll; tUtha; mYtyuplk; mtUila kidtp gFj;jwpt[ vd;gtupd; nfhg;gpid Fwpj;J nfl;lhu;/ clnd khtll; tUtha; mYtyu; m/rh/2 lk; gzk; bfhz;L te;jpUff; pwPu;fsh vd;W nfl;lhu;/”
13. To which PW2 took the tainted money M.O.1 and gave it to the 1st
Accused. But, the 1st Accused asked PW2 to keep the amount with himself and called A2 and directed A2 to bring the file No.3858/2013. When A2 went out to bring the file, A1 asked PW2 whether he brought the requisition of PW2’s wife, to reduce the guideline value since the subject land is an agricultural land. PW2 handed over the requisition letter to A1. After receiving the requisition the 1st accused put his side initial in the requisition letter. At that time A2 came inside with the file. A1 handed over the requisition letter to A2 and directed her to prepare challan by fixing the guideline value as Rs.230 per sq.ft. Accordingly, A2 prepared the challan. A1 handed over that challan to A2 at that time PW2 took the tainted money and gave it to A1. But, A1 directed PW2 to hand over M.O.1 to A2 . Thereafter A2 took PW2 to her seat and there A2 received M.O.1 and counted it and kept it in her hand bag. PW2 came out and gave pre-arranged signal. PW18 along with the other official witnesses and police party came to the spot and PW2 informed that happenings to PW18 and the same was also confirmed by PW3. PW2 identified the accused. PW18 introduced themselves to the accused and conducted chemical test on both hands of the 2nd
Accused. Chemical test on the both hands of the 2nd Accused proved positive. When PW18 enquired about the money the 2nd accused produced the tainted amount from her hand bag and the serial numbers of the currency note were compared with the Entrustment Mahazar and found tallied. Further when, PW18 enquired the 2nd Accused regarding the tainted money, she admitted that only on the direction of A1 she received M.O.1 and kept it in her hand bag.
14. P.W.18 recovered both hands solution of the accused. The same wasmarked as M.O.2 and M.O.3. When PW18 further searched the hand bag of A2 he found three brown covers in which in one cover it is written as D.No.4694/2014 Feroz Abdul Latif and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was inside the cover. In another cover it is written as D.No.6663/2014 Anupama Muktha and a sum of Rs.19,000/- was inside the cover. In yet another cover it is written as ஆவணஎண் .400/2014, R.Durai and a sum of Rs.40,000/- was inside the cover and a sum of Rs.7030/- was also were in the hand bag, in total Rs.1,06,950/-. So, apart from M.O.1 PW18 recovered a sum of Rs.1,06,950/- and the same is marked as M.O.4. The brown covers were marked as M.O.5. Apart from M.O.1 PW18 recovered a sum of Rs.1,06,950/- from the hand bag of the 2nd Accused. The accused persons were arrested. The case properties were recovered through a Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.11. The case property was produced under From-95 Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.24. PW18 gave requisition for chemical analysis of the case properties and obtained chemical analysis report through court under Ex.P.17.
Thereafter, he altered the Sec.7 of PC Act into Sec.7 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of PC Act, 1988 and filed the Ex.P.20 the alteration report.
15. Thereafter, PW18 handed over the case records to PW19 the Inspector ofPolice, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Chennai as per the instructions of his higher officials.
16. P.W.19 recorded the statement of witnesses and collected all the documents of this case and completed the investigation and sent the final report to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption for obtaining sanction against the accused. He has obtained the sanction Order under Ex.P1 through Directorate and recorded the statement of PW1 sanctioning authority and completed the investigation and filed final report under Section 7, 13(2), r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988 as against 1st Accused and U/s.12 and 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w.109 IPC as against 2nd Accused.
17. On the conclusion of Prosecution evidence the accused persons wereexamined under Section 313 Cr.P.C pertaining to the incriminating evidence tendered against them by the prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as false case and opted to lead defense evidence and one Tmt.Sankari was examined as DW1 and Tr.Dayalan as DW2 but no documents marked on the side of Defence.
18. DW1 is one Tmt.Sankari, she deposed that she was working as aTemporary Staff at the office of Accused and there were 10 other persons who were working as Temporary staff like DW1. Generally the government staff of the office of the Accused will hand over the notices to the Temporary staff for drafting. After receipt of the notices from the Accused office the parties will come to meet Tahsildar for fixing the stamp duty. If the parties are not satisfied with the stamp duty fixed by the Tahsildar, the DRO will fix the stamp duty. Thereafter, for the deficit stamp duty these temporary staff will go to the RBI to remit the deficit stamp duty through
Challan. On the next day the concern party will collect the copy of the challan from the temporary staff. Further, the temporary staff will make an endorsement on the concern file and will it send it to concerned Sub-Registrar Office. She further deposed that A2 also working with her as a temporary staff in the office of the Accused. On 11.07.2014 when the DVAC police came to the DRO Office she was present over there and hence she was also enquired by the police.
19. DW2 is one Tr.Dayalan. He deposed that he was doing a real estatebusiness. At the relevant point of time he was selling house plots in the name of VIP
City at Utteramerur. When deficit stamp duty is found by the concern Sub-Registrar Office, the concern document will be forwarded to DRO (stamps). This process will be followed by DW2 on behalf of the concern parties. On 04.07.2014 DW2 came to the office of the Accused and received the challan with regard to five documents of VIP city. Thereafter on 11.07.2014 he handed over a sum of Rs.99,000/- to A2 for the purpose of remitting it with RBI and he also gave Rs.5,000/- to A2 for her personal expenses. He further deposed that like A2 there were 6 to 10 persons were working as temporary staff. He utilized the service of other temporary staff also on various occasions. Thereafter at 4.00 PM on 11.07.2014 when he returned to the office of the Accused he found that Vigilance police were conducting enquiry. He informed them that he gave cash to A2 for the purpose of remitting the same with RBI for 5 documents. Then he came to know that he cannot get back the amount at that time and went back. Thereafter he paid his own money towards the deficit stamp duty. He further deposed till date he could not get back the money.
20. Points for consideration is that whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts or not?
Heard both sides. PW2 purchased agricultural land in Panangatoor Village, Kancheepuram District, Survey No.121/F to the extent of 66 cents in the name of his wife Tmt.Paghutharivu PW6 and registered the documents with the Sub-Registrar Joint-2, Chengalpattu in D.No.3858/2013 in Ex.P.2 which was sent to the 1st Accused for the purpose of fixing the Market Value as stamp duty was not paid by PW2 according to the guidelines of IG Registration. Letter from the office of the DRO Stamps in Na.Ka.No.86/2013 received by the witness Tr.G.Chandrababu calling upon him to pay additional amount of Rs.6,20,928/- as difference in stamp fees. Accordingly PW2 met the accused in his office on 27.02.2014 and again on 03.07.2014 and at that time the 1st accused demanded a sum of Rs.75,000/- and subsequently reduced to Rs.60,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing favour to the witness in the exercise of his official duty to reduce the value of the land to the tune of Rs.230/- per sq.ft otherwise to fix the rate as Rs.400/- per sq.ft. Since PW2 was unwilling to give bribe amount of Rs.60,000/- he lodged complaint. Thereafter on 11.07.2014 a trap was successfully laid.
21. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PW2 deposed aboutthe demand made by the accused for showing favour to PW2 to reduce the value of the land to the tune of Rs.230/- per Sq.ft. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PW2 and PW3 had further clearly deposed that on 11.07.2014 when they met 1st accused, the 1st Accused demanded the money and accepted the same through A2. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of
PW2 and PW3 clearly establishes the demand made by the 1st Accused. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that the tainted money is recovered from the 2nd Accused and the chemical test was also proved positive. Though, the version of accused is that A1 did not demand the amount from PW2 and accepted the same through A2, it is for the accused persons to prove the same. As per Section 20 the presumption is drawn as against the accused persons. The accused did not come forward to give a rebuttal evidence for the positive result of chemical test.
22. This court observed that since the 1st Accused was working as District Revenue Officer (Stamps) at the office of the District Collectorate, Chennai he comes under the definition of Sec.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same was not disputed by the Accused.
22(a). As per the case of prosecution 27/2/2014 A1 demanded Rs.75,000 for showing favour to PW2 to reduce the value of the land to the tune of Rs.230 per Sq.ft. After sometime once again when pw2 called on A1 on 3/7/14 he has reiterated his demand.
23. PW2 who is not willing to give bribe money lodged complaint with PW18
TLO at 7:00 hrs on 11.07.2014 and subsequently after preparation of Entrustment mahazer as evidenced in Ex.P.5, PW2 has called on A1 at his office accompanied by PW3 and the accused had made the final demand and accepted the same through A2.
24. In this case pw2 who is only available evidence for 1st demand and lodgingof complaint had not supported the case of prosecution from the point of initial demand made on 03.07.2015 till the point of acceptance made by A1 through A2. He has also stated that in order to expeditiously get back the Ex.P.2 sale deed only he approached PW18 and on his instruction only he lodged the complaint and nothing has been transpired as stated in the complaint. In these circumstances though PW2 has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in any aspect except the handing over of M.O.1 bribe amount to A2, as held by our Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Dutta Vs.State (Govt of N.C.T of Delhi) Crl.A.No.1669/2009 in the Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, this court is duty bound to consider the charges leveled against the accused with other evidence and matters available on record with attending circumstances. As such there is no evidence for initial demand except PW2 this court has to consider the lodging of complaint Ex.P.3 whether it is voluntarily done by PW2 or it is made as instructed by
PW18.
25. In this regard no personal motive is attributed against PW18 the TLO toinitiate a false proceedings against A1 and no such motive is suggested to TLO during his cross examination.
26. At the same time PW2 deposed as though Ex.P.3 complaint is made on theinstruction of PW18 it is not claimed that PW18 or his subordinates has only written the complaint and PW2 placed his signature. Hence it is made clear that PW2 has alone made the complaint but the only question remains to be answered is voluntariness of the same. In these circumstances PW7 has categorically deposed that he has perused the FIR and complaint and verified the correctness of the same with PW2 and it is not reported by PW2 that he informed PW7 about the instructions given by TLO to prepare the complaint in such manner.
27. One more thing to be considered is the amount of money taken by PW2 with him while lodging the complaint as he has beforehandedly taken Rs.60,000/while he has gone to police station. These conduct of PW2 taking bribe money with him before lodging the complaint and absence of any ill-motive with PW18 against A1 for falsely implicating him in a case and PW2 has appraised PW7 about correctness of the complaint clearly proves that PW2 has lodged Ex.P.3 complaint on his own volition only and not instructed by TLO as claimed by him in his evidence.
28. Though it is found that Ex.P.3 complaint is voluntarily lodged by PW2 itdoes not mean that by the same only demand made by the 1st accused is proved. Hence for the same other attending circumstances has to be considered along with the evidence of PW3, PW7 and PW18.
29. As per the evidence of PW3 after preparation of Entrustment mahazer asinstructed by PW18 he has accompanied PW2 while he called on A1. When PW2 enquired with A1 about Ex.P.2 sale deed, A1 had asked PW2 whether he brought the money or not and on ascertaining the same A1 had completed the formalities and when PW2 tried to tender the amount with A1 he has directed him to handover the same to A2 and who has received the same and placed it in her hand bag in following words.
The relevant portion of chief examination of PW3 as follows:-
“m/rh/2 khtl;l tUtha; mYtyhplk; mtUila kidtp gFj;jwpt[ vd;gthpd; nfhg;gpid Fwpj;J nfl;lhh;/ clnd khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; m/rh/2lk; gzk; bfhz;L te;jpUf;fpwhP ;fsh vd;W nfl;lhh;/ clnd m/rh/2 jd;Dila rli; l ghf;bfl;oy; ,Ue;j gzj;ij vLf;f Kaw;rpj;jhh;/ mg;nghJ M$h; 1k; vjphpahd khtll; tUtha; mYtyh; nkhfdRe;juk; m/rh/2lnk gzj;ij itj;J bfhs;Sk;go brhd;dhh;/ gpd;dh; M$h; 1k; vjphp nutjp vd;fpw egiu miHj;J mthplk; nfhg;g[ vz;/3858 bfhz;L tUk;go gzpj;jhh;/ mth; nfhg;ig bfhz;L tu brd;wt[ld; m/rh/2lk; c’;fs; kidtpaplk; c’;fs; epyk; tptrha epyk; vdnt tHpfhlL; jy; kjpg;ig Fiwj;J nghLk;go nfl;Fk; fojj;ij vGjp bfhz;L te;Js;sPh;fsh vd;W M$h; 1k; vjphp nfll; hh;/ m/rh/2lk; bfhz;L te;jpUg;gjhf brhy;yp me;j fojj;ij vLj;J M$h; 1k; vjphpaplk; bfhLj;jhh;/ mij bgw;W bfhz;L M$h; 1k; vjphp mjpy;
RUf;bfhg;gk; ,l;lhh;/ me;j rkaj;jpy; M$h; 2k; vjphpahd nutjp vd;gtUk; nfhg;g[ld; m’;F te;jhh;/ M$h; 1k; vjphp M$h; 2k; vjphpaplk; me;j fojj;ij bfhLj;J m/rh/2d; ,lj;jpw;F xU rJu mo U:/230-= vd;W tHpfhlL; jy; kjpg;ig Fiwj;J nghl;L bryhd; jahh; bra;JtUk;go brhd;dhh;/ 2k; vjphpa[k; mtt; hnw Fiwj;J nghl;L bryhd; jahh; bra;J te;jhh;/ me;j bryhid 1k; vjphp m/rh/2lk; bfhLj;jhh;/ mg;nghJ m/rh/2 mtUila rli; l ghf;bfl;oypUe;j gzj;ij vLj;J M$h; 1k; vjphpaplk; bfhLj;j nghJ 1k; vjphp me;j gzj;ij 2k; vjphpaplk; bfhLf;Fk;go brhd;dhh;/ 2k; vjphp m/rh/2I tUk;go brhy;yp miHj;J bfhz;L mtUila ,Ufi; ff;F brd;whh;/ ehDk; cld; brd;nwd;/ 2k; vjphp mtUila ,Uf;iff;F brd;wt[ld; 2k; vjphp me;j gzj;ij th’;fp vz;zp;g;ghh;j;Jtpl;L mtUila ifgi; gapy; itj;Jf;bfhzl; hh;/”
30. In this case PW3 is not a secondary evidence but he is a direct witness andhis evidence is a substantive evidence since he has claimed to have directly witnessed the things transpired before him. This part of his evidence about his presence at the date of Scene of occurrence is corroborated by the evidence of PW7 and PW18 and his signatures found in the contemporaneous documents such as entrustment mahazer as deposed by PW2, Ex.P.11 seizure mahazer, M.O.2 and M.O.3 Prepared at Scene of occurrence. Moreover the presence of PW3 at DRO office is not disputed but his entry into the chamber of A1 alone is disputed.
The relevant portion of cross examination of PW3 is s follows
“khtll; tUtha; mYtyfj;jpw;F klL; k; jhd; eP’;fs; brd;wPu;fs; vd;Wk;. Vjpupapd; miwf;F bryy; tpyi; y vd;Wk; brhd;dhy; rupay;y.”
31. But except this suggestion no answer is elicited so as to discredit theevidence of PW3 about his presence in the chamber of A1 when PW2 met him and when he gave the amount with A2, at the same time as stated above his presence is proved through other contemporaneous materials produced in this case. Further when the entry of PW3 at the office of DRO is not disputed by the defence this court finds no reason to doubt the evidence of PW3 that as instructed by TLO in the entrustment mahazer he has accompanied PW2 into the chamber of A1 and subsequently when he met A2. Further more his presence on the date of occurrence from the office of DVAC till the office of DRO is clearly proved through oral evidence of PW3 and corroborated by the undisputed oral testimony of PW2 that he and both official witness have signed in Ex.P.5 at the office of PW18. Hence this court is of the view that the evidence of PW3 fully inspires the confidence of this court and from his evidence the prosecution has proved that on 11.07.2014 PW2 has called on A1 and he has ascertained whether PW2 brought the amount as already instructed by A1 and subsequently the M.O.1 tainted money is handed over to A2 as directed by A1 and the same clearly established the demand and acceptance made by A1 with the aid of A2.
32. The above conclusion is corroborated by the evidence of PW2 as A2 hasreceived the amount tendered by him.
33. Though it is claimed by PW2 and defence that it is a part payment madetowards the deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,78,495/- due under Ex.P.2 it could not be a true one for the following reasons that it is undisputed and consistent stand of PW2 that Ex.P.12 challan has been handed over to him with a direction to pay the amount and the same is substantiated and corroborated by evidence of PW3. If really challan is handed over to PW2 for remitting deficit stamp duty of Rs.2,78,495/- With RBI there could be no reason for tendering the amount payable with RBI to A2. Hence the defence of the accused and claim made through PW2 that the amount is paid towards part payment of stamp duty could not be believed and against the materials available on record. Further more the evidence of DW1 had also corroborated the above conclusion. As per her evidence at any event they would not receive the stamp duty as a part payment. Hence when challan is already handed over to PW2 to remit amount with RBI the question of receiving amount as a part payment of stamp duty does not arise.
With regard to Final Demand PW3 deposed as follows:-
“m/rh/2 khtl;l tUtha; mYtyhplk; mtUila kidtp gFj;jwpt[ vd;gthpd; nfhg;gpid Fwpj;J nfl;lhh;/ clnd khtl;l tUtha; mYtyh; m/rh/2lk; gzk; bfhz;L te;jpUf;fpwhP ;fsh vd;W nfl;lhh;/ clnd m/rh/2 jd;Dila rli; l ghf;bfl;oy; ,Ue;j gzj;ij vLf;f Kaw;rpj;jhh;/ mg;nghJ M$h; 1k; vjphpahd khtll; tUtha; mYtyh; nkhfdRe;juk; m/rh/2lnk gzj;ij itj;J bfhs;Sk;go brhd;dhh;/ gpd;dh; M$h; 1k; vjphp nutjp vd;fpw egiu miHj;J mthplk; nfhg;g[ vz;/3858 bfhz;L tUk;go gzpj;jhh;/ mth; nfhg;ig bfhz;L tu brd;wt[ld; m/rh/2lk; c’;fs; kidtpaplk; c’;fs; epyk; tptrha epyk; vdnt tHpfhlL; jy; kjpg;ig Fiwj;J nghLk;go nfl;Fk; fojj;ij vGjp bfhz;L te;Js;sPh;fsh vd;W M$h; 1k; vjphp nfll; hh;/ m/rh/2lk; bfhz;L te;jpUg;gjhf brhy;yp me;j fojj;ij vLj;J M$h; 1k; vjphpaplk; bfhLj;jhh;/ mij bgw;W bfhz;L M$h; 1k; vjphp mjpy;
RUf;bfhg;gk; ,l;lhh;/ me;j rkaj;jpy; M$h; 2k; vjphpahd nutjp vd;gtUk; nfhg;g[ld; m’;F te;jhh;/ M$h; 1k; vjphp M$h; 2k; vjphpaplk; me;j fojj;ij bfhLj;J m/rh/2d; ,lj;jpw;F xU rJu mo U:/230-= vd;W tHpfhlL; jy; kjpg;ig Fiwj;J nghl;L bryhd; jahh; bra;JtUk;go brhd;dhh;/ 2k; vjphpa[k; mtt; hnw Fiwj;J nghl;L bryhd; jahh; bra;J te;jhh;/ me;j bryhid 1k; vjphp m/rh/2lk; bfhLj;jhh;/ mg;nghJ m/rh/2 mtUila rli; l ghf;bfl;oypUe;j gzj;ij vLj;J M$h; 1k; vjphpaplk; bfhLj;j nghJ 1k; vjphp me;j gzj;ij 2k; vjphpaplk; bfhLf;Fk;go brhd;dhh;/ 2k; vjphp m/rh/2I tUk;go brhy;yp miHj;J bfhz;L mtUila ,Ufi; ff;F brd;whh;/ ehDk; cld; brd;nwd;/ 2k; vjphp mtUila ,Uf;iff;F brd;wt[ld; 2k; vjphp me;j gzj;ij th’;fp vz;zpg;ghh;j;Jtpl;L mtUila ifgi; gapy; itj;Jf;bfhzl; hh;/”
With regard to recovery PW3 deposed as follows:-
“gpd;dh; 2k; vjphpaplk; m/rh/2lkpUe;J th’;fpa y”;r gzk; v’;nf vd;W nfll; hhf; s;/ clnd 2k; vjphp mtUila ,Uf;iff;F brd;W mtUila ifg;igia vLj;J te;J mjpy; ,Ue;j gzj;ij vLj;J bfhLj;jhh;/ gpd;dh; Ma;thsh; brhd;djd;nghpy; m’;fpUe;j fhtyh; 2k; vjphpapd; ifg;igia th’f; p nrhjid bra;jhh;fs;/ mjpy; m/rh/2lkpUe;J th’;fp gzk; jtph;j;J ntW bjhiffs; fth; ftuhf ,Ue;jJ/ mij gphpj;J ghh;j;jnghJ xU fthpy; U:/40000-=Kk; kwb; whU fthpy; U:/19000-= kw;bwhU fthpy; U:/40000-= kw;bwhU fthpy; U:/7950-=khf ,Ue;jJ/ me;j bjhiffs; KGtija[k; rhl;rp Fnge;jpudplk; bfhLj;J Ma;thsh; vz;zp;g;ghh;f;Fk;go brhd;dhh;/ mjpy; U:/106950-= ,Ue;jJ/”
With regard to recovery PW7 deposed as follows:-
“nkYk; mth; khiy 5/50 kzpf;F 2k; vjphpia g[fhh;jhuhplkpUe;J y”;rgzj;ij bgw;wjw;fhf ifJ bra;jhh;/ gpd;dh; Mat; hsh; M$h;2k; vjphpaplk; gzk; v’;nf vd;W nfll; nghJ btspapy; cs;s jd;Dila ifg;ig ,Ug;gjhf brhd;dhh;/ Ma;thsh; 2k; vjphpaplk; me;j ifg;igia bfhz;LtUk;go brhd;dhh;/ 2k; vjphp ifg;igia bfhz;Lte;J mjpy; ,Ue;j gzj;ij Ma;thshplk; bfhLj;jhh;/ Ma;thsh; me;j gzj;ij vd;dplk; bfhLj;J vz;zp ghh;f;Fk;go bjhptpj;jhh;/ vz;zpghh;j;jnghJ mjpy; 1000-?U:gha;nehl;Lf;fs; 60Mf 60.000-? rhpahf ,Ue;jJ/ nkYk; me;j U:gha;nehlL; f;fspd; thpir vzf; is xg;gilg;g[ kfrhpy;cs;s thpir vz;fnshL xg;gpl;lnghJ mJ rhpahf ,Ue;jJ/ mij Ma;thsh; tHf;fpw;fhf ifg;gw;wpf;bfhz;lhh;/ me;j gzk; Vw;fdnt rhbgh1 Mf FwpaPL bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ/ Ma;thsh; me;j ifg;igia nrhjidapll; nghJ 3gput[d;epw fth;fSk;. nkYk; jdpahf gzKk; ,Ue;jJ/ mjpy; 1gput[d;epw ciwapd; nky; bgnuh!;mg;Jy; yj;jPg; vd;W vGjg;gl;L mjpy; 40.000-?U: gzk; ,Ue;jJ/ 2tJgput[d;epw ciwapd; nky; mDgkh Kf;jh vd;W vGjg;glL; mjpy; U:/19.000-?gzk; ,Ue;jJ/ 3tJgput[d;epw ciwapd; nky; Jiu vd;W vGjg;gl;L mjpy; 40.000-?U: gzk; ,Ue;jJ/ nkYk; jdpahf me;j ifg;igapy; 7950-?U:gha; ,Ue;jJ/ bkhj;jk; U:/1.06.950-? ,Ue;jJ/”
34. Though they were cross examined by the defence in detail nothing waselicitted in favour of defence
35. Regarding initial demand though pw2 has turned hostile, from theattending circumstances and evidence available on record, as held by our Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Neeraj Dutta Vs.State (Govt of N.C.T of Delhi) Crl.A.No.1669/2009 in the Supreme Court of India Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, this court is able to find enough material for the initial demand made by A1.
36. In this case the 1st accused had kept the papers without any order for more than 5 months as deposed by PW2.
37. Moreover the claim of PW2 that the complaint is not voluntarily lodgedand he is made to lodge the complaint by TLO and A1 had not demanded any bribe on the date of occurrence are found as false. Hence this court comes to conclusion that without earlier demand A1 could not have enquired with PW2 whether he has brought the amount as instructed by him which is proved through the evidence of PW3.
38. Further it is not disputed either by PW2 or accused that in the given datesie., 27.02.2014, 03.07.2014 PW2 has met A1 and this admitted events with the proved facts of enquiry made by A1 with PW2 about the availability of money demanded by him clearly makes out that on the earlier demand made by A1 alone PW2 has come with the bribe money of Rs.60,000/-.
39. In these circumstances the Accused also contended that the SanctionAuthority has given Sanction Order in a hurried manner. This court observed that when it is not suggested a defence as required materials are not placed before Sanction Authority and when the sanction order clearly shows that he has considered all the materials placed before him this contention of accused could not be accepted.
40. Further the learned defence counsel contended that the observationMahazar, Seizure Mahazar were not prepared as claimed by the prosecution. Further M.O.2 and M.O.3 were prepared by the prosecution for the purpose of this case and further contended that the phenolphthalein test was not conducted as claimed by the prosecution.
41. This court observed that the evidence of PW3 and PW7 along with PW18 clearly proves the recovery made from A2 and subsequently phenolphthalein test conducted on the same. Moreover as per the evidence of PW2 he has given the currency stated in Entrustment Mahazer smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the same is not disputed by the defence. Hence this court finds no reason to doubt the phenolphthalein test, entrustment mahazer, Seizure Mahazar and M.O.2 and M.O.3. The learned defence counsel contended that, Ex.P.16 is not a original document. This court observed that when pw2 himself deposed that initially a sum of rs 6,20,928/Was determined as deficit stamp duty even in the absence of original form 1 (Ex.P.16) the factum that A2 has dealt with Ex.P.2 sale deed regarding stamp duty is clearly proved.
42. The Learned defence counsel further contended that, the official witnessesare in a rank below the 1st Accused. This court observed that though the official witnesses PW3 and PW7 are below the rank of A1 when as discussed above the evidence of PW3 and PW7 clearly proves the demand, acceptance and recovery of M.O.1 and no illmotive is pointed against them the defence of accused that the official witnesses in lower rank would try to implicate the accused person could not be accepted. Moreover prior to the occurrence the 1st Accused and official witnesses have had no opportunity to meet each other in their official capacity.
43. The Learned defence counsel further contended that, PW7 is a stockwitness of DVAC this court observed that as discussed above the case of prosecution is not solely rested upon the evidence of PW7 per contra the evidence of PW3 itself clearly proved the demand and acceptance made by A1through A2, the part played by PW7 is in recovery of tainted money alone whose possession is not disputed by defence as the same is in the hands of A2.
44. Furthermore regarding the Entrustment Mahazar the evidence of PW2 clearly proved the same. Hence even in the absence of evidence of PW7 from the undisputed evidence of PW2 and evidence of PW3 it is clearly proved that the tainted money alone has been received by A2 as directed by A1 . Hence there is no dispute as to the custody of tainted money with A2 . Hence the defence of accused regarding reliability of PW7 could not be accepted.
45. The Learned defence counsel further contended that, the investigationofficer of this case PW19 participated in the arrest of accused persons, Hence, the investigation done by him is not maintainable. This court observed that, when demand and acceptance are clearly proved through evidence of PW3 for mere
presence of PW19 at the time of arrest will not affect the case of the prosecution.
46. Regarding A2 as per the evidence of defence witness itself she has beenworking in the office though nature of work is not ascertainable one but as deposed by DW2 she is used to get challan amount in the office. Furthermore receipt of mo 1 by her as deposed by PW2 remains uncontroverted. Hence A2 must be held as present at the scene of occurrence and received the tainted money from pw2. Hence when A2 has received M.O.1 as instructed by A1 it must be held that she has aided A1 in receiving the bribe amount.
47. Hence she must be held guilty of abetment of A1 in receiving bribe amountfrom PW2 and she is guilty of offence under section 12 of Prevention of Corruption ACT 1988.
48. Regarding seizure of MO.4 Rs.1,06,950/- from A2 it is not disputed by thedefence but it is claimed that they are the amount collected meant for remitting in treasury but no proof is filed to substantiate the same. If really the amount is payable to Government a claim would have been made against the A2 for not depositing the amount in Government account but no such proof is filed. Further the evidence of DW2 , though he has claimed to have given the amount with A2 no proof is available to show that the document concerned with Dw2 is under consideration in the office of DRO for collection of stamp duty. At the same time the recovered amount are found in brown covers named Tr.Feroz Abdul Latif, Tmt.Anupama Muktha and Tr.R.Durai. Hence DW2’s evidence could not be believed.
49. From the evidence of PW3, PW7, PW15, PW18, PW19 and Ex.P.17 theinitial demand and final demand and acceptance is proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
50. As the demand of 1st Accused and acceptance through A2 is clearly proved the presumption provided u/s.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as 1st Accused accepted through A2 the amount only as a gratification other than legal remuneration arises in favour of prosecution and it is for the Accused to rebut the same as it is not received as an illegal gratification. For the same Accused has not adduced any evidence and has not made out a case through the cross examination of prosecution witness.
51. Hence this court comes to the conclusion that Accused has failed todischarge the burden lies on them.
52. From the above discussion this court come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against 1st Accused under section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act 1988 is proved and the charges levelled against 2nd Accused under section 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act 1988 is proved.
53. In view of the above discussions this court finds that the 1st Accused is found guilty of commission of offence under section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988 and the 2nd Accused is found guilty of commission of offence under section 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act 1988.
54. The Accused persons were questioned regarding the sentence to beimposed against them u/s 248 (2) Cr.P.C. The 1st Accused represented that he is an innocent and pleaded leniency. The 2nd Accused represented that she is an innocent and pleaded leniency. This court did not find any reasonable circumstances to award lesser sentence.
In result, 1st Accused is found guilty of commission of offence u/s 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The Accused is sentenced to under go four years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 3-months simple imprisonment u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The accused is sentenced to under go five years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 6-months simple imprisonment U/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of P.C Act 1988, the sentence of imprisonment imposed for each offence shall run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the Accused if any is ordered to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Total Fine amount Rs.1,00,000/-.
The Accused No.2 is found guilty of commission of offence u/s 12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is sentenced to under go four years rigorous imprisonment and shall pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 1-month simple imprisonment u/s.12 r/w.13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The period of sentence already undergone by the Accused No.2 if any is ordered to be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.
M.O.1 cash Rs.60,000/- (1000×60) is ordered to be returned to the defacto complainant (PW2) and M.O.2 and M.O.3 are ordered to handover to the Investigating Agency of this case for destruction and the investigating Agency is directed to file report after destruction, after the expiry of Appeal time as per rule
262 of Criminal Rules of Practice 2019. As far as M.O.4 is concern though the Accused claimed that it is amount to be deposited in the Treasury no proof is filed hence it is ordered to be confiscated to the state.
Regarding PW2 in this case he has given a false evidence in order to save the accused from the charges against the proved facts and the role played by him in the lodging of complaint and trap proceedings. Hence he must be dealt with sec 193 of IPC following the procedures prescribed in Sec.340 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly it is ordered to lodge a complaint against PW2 for the offence of perjury before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
Dictated to Stenographer directly, computerized by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this 14th day of March 2025.
//True Copy//
SPECIAL JUDGE
Special Court for the cases under P.C.Act, Chennai.
Prosecution Witnesses:
P.W.1 : Tr.Jatindra Nath Swain IAS, Principal Secretary to Government, Public Department.
P.W.2 : Tr.M.Chandrababu Old No.10, New No.14/10, Venkateswara Avenue, Sabari Nagar, Porur Chennai-116.
P.W.3 : Tmt.R.Manonmani Statistical Officer, Economics and Statistic Department, Teynampet, Chennai-06.
P.W.4 : Tr.M.A.Imtiaz Ahmed Special Tahsildar (Stamps), O/o.District Revenue Office (Stamps), Chennai-01.
P.W.5 : Tr.B.Dhanasekaran Sub-Registrar, Joint-II, O/o.Sub Registrar Office, Chengalpattu.
P.W.6 : Tmt.Paghutharivu Old No.10, New No.14/10, Venkateswara Avenue, Sabari Nagar, Porur Chennai-116.
P.W.7 : Tr.P.V.Kubendran Deputy Director, Economics and Statistic Department, Teynampet, Chennai-06.
P.W.8 : Tr.K.Gopalakrishnan Junior Assistant, O/o.District Revenue Office (Stamps), No.32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai Collectorate Building, Chennai-01.
P.W.9 : Tmt.T.Jayalakshmi Junior Assistant, O/o.District Revenue Office (Stamps), No.32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai Collectorate Building, Chennai-01.
P.W.10 : Tr.T.Subramanian Special Tahsildar (Stamps), O/o.District Revenue Office (Stamps), Chennai
Collectorate Building, Chennai-01.
P.W.11 : Tr.K.Madhan Kuppuraj Special Tahsildar (Tiruvallur), O/o.District
Revenue Office (Stamps), Chennai
Collectorate Building, Chennai-01.
P.W.12 : Selvi.S.Jayalakshmi Revenue Assistant, O/o.District Revenue Office (Stamps), Chennai.
P.W.13 : Tr.Sivakumar Assistant, O/o.Tondiarpet Taluk, Office Chennai-81. Earlier working as Assistant In O/o.District Revenue Office (Stamps), Chennai.
P.W.14 : Tmt.G.Pushpalatha Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28
P.W.15 : Tr.S.Rajaram Scientific Officer (Analyst), Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, Mylapore, Chennai.
P.W.16 : Tr.Thulasiraman Manager, Triway Warehouse and holdings private limited, No.14, Jaffar Street, Chennai-01.
P.W.17 : Tmt.Anuppama Muttha No.202/253, Velachery Road, East
Tambaram, Selayur, Chennai-59.
P.W.18 : Tr.N.Venkatesan Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28
P.W.19 : Tr.F.Joy Dayal Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, City Special Unit-I, Chennai-28
Defence side witnesses:
D.W.1 : Tmt.Sankari Temporary Worker, office of the District Collectorate, Chennai. Residing at No.4/150, Lakshmi Amman Kovil Street, Karonodai, Chennai-67.
D.W.2 : Tr.Dayalan Real Estate Business. Residing at
Uttiramerur.
Prosecution side Exhibits:
P.W.1 : Ex.P.1 : Sanction for prosecution accorded by the Principal Secretary to Government in G.O.Ms.No.244 of Public (Special.A) Department dated.19.02.2015.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.2 : Document in Purchase Order in Doc.No.3858/2013 dated.10.04.2013.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.3 : Complaint of Tr.M.Chandrababu, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.4 : Signature in FIR given by Tr. Tr.M.Chandrababu, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.5 : Entrustment Mahazar, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.6 : Xerox Copy of Form No.I pertaining to Doc.No.3858/2013 prepared in the O/o.District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai-01.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.7 : Letter from R.Baghutharivu to the District Revenue Officer, District Collector Office, 5th Floor, Singaravelar Maligai, 32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-116.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.8 : Letter from R.Baghutharivu to the District Revenue Officer, Chennai dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.2 : Ex.P.9 : Attested Xerox Copy of RBI Challan in the name of Tmt.Baghutharivu, W/o.Tr.M.Chandrababu pertaining to Doc.No.3858/2013, for amount of Rs.2,78,495/- (3 papers).
P.W.3 : Ex.P.10 : Letter from Tr.P.Dhanasekaran, No.2, Joint Sub-Registrar, Chengalpet to District Revenue Officer, Singaravelar Maaligai, Chennai-600001.
P.W.3 : Ex.P.11 : Seizure Mahazar, Dated.11.07.2014
Service Particulars of Accused Officer
Tr.A.R.Viswanathan.
P.W.4 : Ex.P.12 : Attested Xerox Copy of RBI Challan in the name of Tmt.Baghutharivu, W/o.Tr.M.Chandrababu pertaining to Doc.No.3858/2013, for amount of Rs.2,78,495/-.
P.W.7 : Ex.P.13 : Office Note pertaining to Doc.No.3857/2013 and 3858/2013 prepared in the O/o.District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai-01.
P.W.7 : Ex.P.14 : Rough Sketch, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.8 : Ex.P.15 : Extract of DR Book page pertaining to 27.08.2013 (D.R.No.5912 to 5953) maintained in the O/o.DRO (Stamps), Chennai.
P.W.13 : Ex.P.16 : Xerox Copy of Form No.I pertaining to Doc.No.3858/2013 prepared in the O/o.District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Chennai-01.
P.W.15 : Ex.P.17 : Chemical Analysis Report in CHE/CHEM/333/2014, dated.22.07.2014.
P.W.18 : Ex.P.18 : First Information Report, Dated.11.07.2014
P.W.18 : Ex.P.19 : Requisition Letter from Inspector of Police, DVAC to the O/o.the Director, Economics and Statistic Department, Teynampet, Chennai-06.
P.W.18 : Ex.P.20 : Section Alteration Report, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.18 : Ex.P.21 : Form-91, bearing Sl.No.3505075, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.18 : Ex.P.22 : Form-91, bearing Sl.No.3505076, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.18 : Ex.P.23 : Form-91, bearing Sl.No.3505077, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.18 : Ex.P.24 : Form-91, bearing Sl.No.3505078, Dated.11.07.2014.
P.W.19 : Ex.P.25 : Letter No.37394/J/2014, Dated.11.07.2014 of the Director, Economics and Statistic Department, Teynampet, Chennai-06 for nomination of Tr.P.V.Kubendran, Deputy Director of Statistics, Grade-A and Tmt.R.Manonmani, Statistical Officer, Grade-B to the V&AC office.
P.W.19 : Ex.P.26 : Arrest Card for the arrest of Tr.G.Mohanasundaram, DRO (Stamps), Chennai.
P.W.19 : Ex.P.27 : Arrest Card for the arrest of Selvi.Revathi, unauthorized staff, working in the O/o.the DRO (Stamps), Chennai.
P.W.19 : Ex.P.28 : Arrest Intimation of the arrest to the Accused, Dated.11.07.2014
P.W.19 : Ex.P.29 : Remand Report, Dated.11.07.2014
P.W.19 : Ex.P.30 : Xerox Copy of Suspension orders vide G.O.(2D) No.49, Public (Special A) Department, Dated.19.07.2014 issued to Tr.G.Mohanasundaram, DRO (Stamps), Chennai.
P.W.19 : Ex.P.31 : Service Particulars of Tr.G.Mohanasundaram, DRO
(Stamps), Chennai as received from Principal Secretary to Government vide letter No.1304/2014-3, Public (Special A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9, Dated.02.08.2014.
Defence Side Exhibits:
Nil.
Prosecution side Material Objects:-
M.O.1 Cash Rs.60,000/- (1000 x60)
M.O.2 Solution of left hand fingers of the 2nd Accused.
M.O.3 Solution of Right hand fingers of the 2nd Accused.
M.O.4 Unaccounted cash of Rs.1,06,950/-
//True Copy//
SPECIAL JUDGE
Special Court for the cases
under P.C.Act, Chennai.
JUDGMENT IN
C.C.No.6/2015
DATED: 14.03.2025
Special Court for the
cases under P.C.Act,
Chennai-104.
