BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 13.12.2024 Pronounced on : 15.05.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 30 of 2018 1.Arumugam ... Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2018 2.K.Ramachandran ... Appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.30 of 2018 Vs. State rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, (DV & AC-Thanjavur, In Crime No.5 of 2002 ... Respondent in both Crl.As. COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.20 of 2014 by virtue of judgment dated 22.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge-cum- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at Kumbakonam. 1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For appellants : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan in Crl.A.(MD) No. 21 of 2018 : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran for M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy in Crl.A.(MD) No. 30 of 2018 For respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON JUDGMENT The accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at Kumbakonam, have filed these Criminal Appeals before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against them for the offence under Sections 7 r/w 34, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) r/w 34 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, passed by the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2017, in C.C.No.20 of 2014 on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at Kumbakonam. For easy reference in deciding the appeals, the rank mentioned in the Court below is denoted here. 2.Brief Facts of the case:- According to the prosecution, A1 was the Inspector of Police of CS-CID, A2 was the Sub Inspector of Police and A3 was working as Head Constable of the said Department. A1 received the information about running of gas agency 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by P.W.2 in the name of “Sun Gas Agency” without obtaining the proper permission and hence, A1 to A3 made the inspection on 04.06.2002, at 12.00 hours in the absence of owner/P.W.2 and asked P.W.4/Manager to produce the document and also demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/- in order to avoid their interference in their business. A1 contacted P.W.2 through phone stating that he had come there and directed to give instructions to P.W.4 to show the godown of the said gas company. P.W.4 showed the godown situated at Selvam Nagar, Plot No.42, Ramanathapuram. Thereafter, he reiterated bribe amount on 13.06.2002 and also A1 further directed P.W.2 to meet him on 15.06.2002 with document and further reiterated demand on 15.06.2002 at 9.30 a.m. P.W.2 along with the Manager met A1 and A2, A3 in his office and they reiterated the demand and reduced the same to Rs.10,000/- and asked to give the same to one Akbar Ali, who worked in the pertol bunk who was examined as P.W.7. P.W.7 did not respond properly. Hence, on 18.06.2002, the complainant met A2 and A3 in their office and they demanded Rs.10,000/- and also directed to arrange the said amount on 20.06.2002. Thereafter, P.W.2 and P.W.4 met the Trap Laying Officer/P.W.10 in his office and gave a complaint to P.W.10. P.W.10, after ascertaining the truth in the complaint and making enquiry regarding the conduct of the parties, registered the case in Crime No.5 of 2002 for the offence under 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He also called two official witnesses namely P.W.3 and another to his office. In their presence, he demonstrated the modus operandi of the phenolphthalein test. Thereafter, P.W.10 prepared the entrustment mahazar/Ex.P.6. P.W.10 instructed P.W.2 and P.W.4 to meet the appellant/A1 in his office and further specifically directed to handover the tainted currency in the event of demand made by A1. P.W.10, further directed P.W.3 to accompany P.W.2 and P.W.4 and watch the entire events. Both P.W.2 to P.W.4 went to the office of A1. At that time, P.W.2 and 4 met A2 and A3 and at that time A2 reiterated the demand and directed to pay the said amount to A3 and A3 received the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter, P.W.4 came out of the office and gave signal to the trap laying officer P.W.10. P.W.10 and his trap team entered into the office of A1 and conducted the phenolphthalein test in the hands of A2 and A3 and the wash turned pink in colour. Due to the change of colour, P.W.10 questioned A2 and A3 about the receipt of the amount. A2 and A3 admitted that as per the direction of A1, they received the said bribe amount. After recovery of the tainted currency, the same was checked with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the entrustment mahazar/Ex.P6 by the official witness. Thereafter P.W.10 arrested A1 to A3 and recovered the document and prepared the recovery mahazar/Ex.P7. Further, Rough Sketch/Ex.P17 was 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis prepared. Thereafter, P.W.10 handed over the investigation to the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, namely, Subramanian. During the investigation, he altered the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, 1988 and examined number of witnesses. During the course of investigation, he passed away. Hence, P.W.11 examined the witnesses, collected the documents and obtained the sanction and completed investigation and filed the final report before learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.4 of 2004 on 04.05.2004. 3.Thereafter, the learned trial Judge summoned the accused/appellants and served copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed the necessary charges and questioned the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and they stood trial. During pendency of the trial, the Principal Bench of this Court directed to transfer the case to the learned Special Judge, Trichy and the same was taken on file in Spl.Case.No.150 of 2011 and some witnesses were examined. Again, the case was transferred to the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.20 of 2014 on 28.11.2014. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11, and exhibited Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 and 6 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O. 6. 5.The learned trial Judge, questioned the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials available against them. They denied the same as false. On the side of the accused, neither witnesses were examined nor documents were marked. 6. The learned trial Judge, considering the above materials, convicted the appellants for the offence under Sections 7 r/w 34 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) r/w 34 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced them as follows: Rank of the Accused Offence punishable under Section Sentence of Imprisonment A2 and A3 7 r/w 34 of PC Act 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. 13(1)(d) r/w13(2) r/w 34 of PC Act 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment. Run Concurrently Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the A2 filed the appeal in Crl.A. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (MD).No.30 of 2018 and A3 filed the appeal in Crl.A.(MD).No.21 of 2018. 7.The learned counsel appearing for A2 in Crl.A.(MD).No.30 of 2018 submitted that according to the prosecution, the only allegation against him is that he made a demand on 18.06.2002 and also the statement of A3 is that he received the amount on behalf of A2. Except the said two materials, no other material is available. Even to prove his demand on 18.06.2002, no corroborate evidence is available. He further submitted that P.W.2 was running illegal business and on the basis of complaint by his rival party a raid was conducted and P.W.2 was asked to produce the documents. Even as per the prosecution document,the proposed action was held on 20.06.2002 and in order to escape from the said action, illegitimate trap was planned and conducted. P.W.2 is a influential person and then Superintendent of Police, was closely associated with P.W.2 and he supported rival party of P.W.2 and hence,he arranged the said trap to rope the appellant in this case. 7.1.The learned counsel appearing for A2 further submitted that P.W.2 had a licence to run gas agency only at one place. But he was running an agency at a different place without a licence and to escape from action he arranged this 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis illegitimate trap. P.W.7 namely Akbar Ali has clearly deposed that he did not know the accused. Ex.P.24 itself proved that P.W.2 had not conducted the business as per law. Therefore, P.W.2 made a false complaint. 7.2.The learned counsel appearing for A2 further submitted that the form 95 was marked as Ex.P.25 series. Form 95 was submitted by one A.Subramanian, Deputy Sueprintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, but, trap was conducted by one Bala Subramanian/P.W.10. Therefore, there is some suspicion relating to the fact as to who conducted the trap. The prosecution belatedly produced the call recorder conversation under Ex.P.26. Ex.P.26 was produced belatedly in the year 2024. Even after the belated production, the investigating agency has not conducted any voice test to prove the voice of any of the appellants. He further submitted that as per Ex.Ps.22 and 23, A2 was not present on the date of demand either accompanying A1 or A3. Therefore, in the complaint, there is a material omission relating to the alleged demand by A2. The said material omission was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. Even in the complaint, they only stated the shop number. In their earlier complaint Ex.P4, they only stated that the shop number without disclosing the identity of the rank of the appellant. Therefore, the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis learned counsel further submitted that after receipt of the amount, A3 kept the entire amount in a cover and put the same in his drawer without utilising the amount. Therefore, the case of the common intention is not established. Sanctioning authority granted sanction by the proceedings, dated 04.03.2004, but the signature of the sanctioning authority is dated 09.03.2004 and there was no explanation for this discrepancy and hence, there is no application of mind. Further, call recorder of the phone was seized and further statement was obtained belatedly that is on 20.06.2002. Hence, he seeks for acquittal. 8.The learned counsel appearing for A3 in C.A.(MD).No.21 of 2018 filed a detailed written submission and reiterated the above submission and also specifically contended that log book produced by the prosecution itself clearly stated that A1 was not present on 15.06.2002. According to the prosecution, 15.06.2002, is the material date to finalize the demanded amount of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, he argued that the demand of bribe amount on 15.06.2002 is not proved. The rough sketch is not properly prepared in accordance with Rule 49 of Manual of Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption. As per the manual, the position of the defacto complainant, accused, official witnesses, trap team are to be mentioned. In the rough sketch/Ex.P.17. There was no such mention in the 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis rough sketch and as per the evidence of P.W.3, the stair case of the first floor was more than three feet and P.W.3 could not have seen the transaction that took place between the appellant and P.W.4. He also submitted that entire prosecution evidence against A2 is blurry and ambiguous. The entire allegation is only against the head constable and not against this appellant. In the said circumstances, every discrepancy is material one. He further submitted about delay in filing the complaint. Apart from that, the learned counsel further submitted that the call details were not recovered, which is material one, in this case. The case of prosecution is that the amount was demanded by the appellants and received by A3 on behalf of others. He further submitted that on 14.06.2002 itself report was submitted and hence, the demand of money on 05.06.2002 is not plausible. He also submitted that number of persons were there in the office and no witness was examined. He also made detailed submission about the official capacity of A3 and he has no role at all in supervising the activity of A1. Therefore, there was mistaken identity and the receipt of amount is concerned, he specifically took a defence that the amount was put in a cover and he placed it on the table and the Deputy Superintendent of Police to take the same and hence, the colour changed in the hands of A3. There was no evidence available against A3 to prove his individual demand. He also requested this Court to consider his 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis written argument and also the precedents relied upon by them. 9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution slapped the offence under Section 7 r/w 13(1)(d) and 13(2) r/w 34 of PC Act, 1988, against the appellants. In the charge, it is stated that in order to avoid interference in the business of P.W.2, they demanded Rs.15,000/- and reduced it to Rs.10,000/-. In the said circumstances, individual demands made on separate dates is material one and P.W.2 clearly spoke about the same and the same was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4. In respect of material circumstances, P.W. 2 to P.W.4 cogently deposed that A2, A3 disclosed about the absence of A1 and they asked to hand over the bribe amount as per the instruction of A1 and A2 and directed A3 to receive the amount and he received the bribe amount. The evidence of P.W.2 and 4 are cogent and trustworthy and the same was corroborated by independent official witness/P.W.3. The appellants' counsel submitted that the document filed by the prosecution is not relevant to decide the issue of demand and acceptance made by the appellants. The said document was produced for a particular purpose. It is not proved that the appellant was running the illegal business and record was collected by investigating agency that he was running the gas agency in three districts and the same was duly approved by the 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis competent officers and therefore, they demanded the bribe amount and caused disturbance to the business. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 10.This Court considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record and precedents relied upon by them. 11. Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge against the appellants is sustainable? 12.Proof of demand and acceptance: 12.1.All the appellants demanded the amount on various occasions with common intention to receive the bribe amount and facilitate P.W.2 to run the business without their interference and hence, the prosecution has come up with the charge of Section 34 of the IPC. 12.2.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, issued the guiding principles in the following judgments to pass conviction under Section 34 of IPC. 12.2.1.In the case of Sanjay Puran Bagde v. State of Maharashtra reported 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in 2022 (18) SCC 53 has held as follows: 12. ... the dominant feature of Section 34 is an element of intention and participation in action. This participation need not in all cases even be physical presence but a common intention. There has to be a simultaneous consensus of minds of the persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. That intention can be formed at any time. Section 34IPC does not create any distinct offence but it lays down the principle of constructive liability stipulating that the act must be done in furtherance of the common intention. 12.2.2.In the case of Sinha v. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 5 SCC 699 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the following paragraph No.11 that common intention can be presumed from the proved circumstances “11. … The liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of a criminal act perpetrated by several persons will arise under Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 only where such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. Direct proof of common intention will, of course, be difficult to get and such intention can only be inferred from the circumstances. But the existence of a common intention must be a necessary inference from the circumstances established in a given case. A common intention can only be inferred from the acts of the parties. Unless a common 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis intention is established as a matter of necessary inference from the proved circumstances the accused persons will be liable for their individual act and not for the act done by any other person. For an inference of common intention to be drawn for the purposes of Section 34, the evidence and the circumstances of the case should establish, without any room for doubt, that a meeting of minds and a fusion of ideas had taken place amongst the different accused and in prosecution of it, the overt acts of the accused persons flowed out as if in obedience to the command of a single mind. If on the evidence, there is doubt as to the involvement of a particular accused in the common intention, the benefit of doubt should be given to the said accused person.” 12.3.In the case of Syed Yousuf Hussain v. State of A.P., reported in 2013 4 SCC 517 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the applicability of Section 34 of IPC to the case of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and held as follows: 10. Section 34 IPC is intended to cover a situation wherein the accused persons have done something with common intention to constitute a criminal act. To get Section 34 attracted, certain conditions precedent are to be satisfied. The act must have been done by more than one person and they must have shared a common intention either by omission or commission in effectuating the crime. It is always not necessary that every accused must do a separate act to be responsible for the ultimate 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis criminal act. What is required is that an accused person must share the common intention to commit the act. 12.4. Applying the conspectus of the above said principle this Court can see the common intention of the accused to demand and receive illegal gratification for their non interference with the business activities of P.W.2 and in furtherance of the common intention, accepted of the illegal gratification. To prove the demand, the prosecution examined P.W.2 and P.W.4 and PW.3 who is a independent official witness. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 clearly deposed about the demand. P.W.2 clearly deposed about the demand made on 04.06.2002 and 13.06.2002 by A1 and further demand made by A1 and A3 on 15.06.2012 and 17.06.2002. P.W. 2 to P.W.4 clearly deposed about the demand made by A2 on 18.06.2002. On the date of trap, ie., 20.06.2002, A2 reiterated the demand. In the furtherance of the common intention to receive the bribe amount on the basis of the demand made prior to the date of the trap, A2 and A3 reiterated the demand on the date of the trap in the absence of A1 and A2 directed A3 to receive the bribe amount after disclosing the fact that A1 directed to receive the bribe amount from P.W.4. In this aspect, the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 is clear and the same is as follows: The evidence of P.W.2:- 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Nf]; FnlhDf;F Ngha; ghh;j;jTld; ePq;fs; Mtzq;fs; midj;Jk; itj;Js;sPh;fs; vd;id &.15000 ftdpj;Jtpl;lhy; ve;jnthU gpur;ridAk; tuhkly; ghh;j;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. ehfg;gl;bzk; Gl; nry; Mgp]pw;F Ngha; vq;fs; mg;ghit ntspapy; fhj;jpUf;f nrhy;ypAk; ,d;];ngf;lh; kzptz;zid Ngha; ghh;j;Njd;. ,t;tof;fpd; Kjy; vjphp jhd; mth;. ,jw;F Kd;G 04.06.2002 md;W &.15000 Nfl;lJk; ,e;j Kjy; vjphp jhd;. Vy;yh Mtzq;fisAk; mth; ghh;j;Jtpl;L vy;yh Mtzq;fSk; rhpahf cs;sJ ehd; epidj;jhy; cq;fis cs;Ns Jhf;fp NghlKbAk;. ePq;fs; vg;gb rpypz;lh; nfhz;L tUfpwPh;fs; vd;W Nfl;lhh;. Ehd; jpUr;rpapy; ,Ue;J tz;b nfhz;L te;J vLj;Jf;nfhz;L Ngha; tpLNthk; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;. mjw;Nf ehd; cq;fis ifJ nra;Ntd; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. Mry; Mtzq;fisAk; n[uhf;]; vLj;Jtur; nrhd;dhh;. Ntspapy; te;J n[uhf;]; fil vq;Nf cs;sJ vd;W tprhhpj;Njd;. gf;fj;jpNyNa ,Uf;fpwJ vd;W jiyik fhtyh; fhz;gpj;jhh;. Ehd; n[uhf;]; vLj;Jf;nfhz;bUf;Fk; NghJ jiyik fhtyh; xU ilg; nra;j Ngg;giu vLj;J te;jhh;. mjpy; ehd; Nf]; jpUl;Ljdkhf epug;gpajhfTk; vq;fis mth;fs; gpbj;jjhfTk; vOjpapUe;jJ. Mjw;F mij vLj;J te;J jiyik fhtyh; ,d;];ngf;liu ftdpj;jhy; jhd; ,e;j gpur;rid jPUk; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. mjd;gpwF lhf;Fnkz;l; n[uhf;]; vLj;Jf;nfhz;L ,d;];ngf;liu Ngha; ghh;j;Njd;. mth; jpUk;gTk; &. 15000 Nfl;lhh; & 2000 Ntz;Lkhdhy; nfhLf;fyhk; vd;W ehd; nrhd;Ndd;. mjw;F ehq;fs; 15 NgH; ,Uf;fpNwhk;. jiyf;F 1000 itj;jhy; jhd; fnuf;lhf ,Uf;Fk; vd;W nrhd;dhh; Nguk; Ngrp & 10000 j;jpw;F ehd; xj;Jf;nfhz;Nld;. ......... mLj;j ehs; NfhFy; uNk\; ehfg;gl;bdk; Gl; nry; Mgp]pw;F NghNdhk;. mq;F v];.I.uhkr;re;jpuDk; iul;lh; MWKfKk; ,Ue;jhh;fs; mth;fs; vjphp 2 kw;Wk; 3 Mthh;fs;. ehd; mth;fsplk; Ngha; tprhhpj;Njd; gzj;ij vq;Nf nfhLg;gJ vd;W Nfl;Nld; mjw;F mth; vd;dq;f & 10000 nfhLg;gjw;F ,t;tsT Fog;gk; nra;fpwPh;fs;. ehl;bNy xt;nthUj;jd; nfhiy nra;J tpl;L ntspapy; Rw;wpf;nfhz;L ,Uf;fpwhhd;. ePq;fs; ,dpNky; tuhjPh;fs; gzj;ij nub gz;zp cq;fs; NkNd[h; %yk; nfhLj;JtpLq;fs; ehq;fs; vd;d VJ vd;W nrhy;fpNwhk; mijg; Nghy; nra;J Nfl;Ltpl;L mDg;gp itAq;fs; mg;NghJ nry;Nghid Md; nra;J itj;Jf;nfhs;sr;nrhd;dhh; nfhQ;rNeuk; fopj;J NfhFy;uNk]; vq;fSf;F Nghd; nra;jhh; ,JNghy; iul;lh; MWKfk; v];.I uhkr;re;jpud; ,UtUk; ,Ue;jjhfTk; MWKfk; gzj;ij ngw;Wf;nfhz;ljhfTk; vd;W nrhd;dhh; clNd b.v];.gp jQ;rhThpy; ,Ue;J gpur;rid nfhLf;fpwhh;fs; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;. ,e;j tpraj;ij iul;lh; MWKfj;jplk; nrhd;Ndd;. ,dpNky; ve;j gpur;ridAk; tuhJ vd;W iul;lh; nrhd;dhh;. The evidence of P.W.3:- Ma;thsh; kzptz;zd; ,y;iyah vd;W Nfl;lhh; mjw;F 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis v];.I.uhkr;re;jpud; gzk; nfhz;L te;jpUf;fpwPh;fsh vd;W Nfl;lhh;. uhkr;re;jpud; kzptz;zd; Ma;thsh; jhq;fs; nfhz;L tUk; gzj;ij thq;fpf;nfhs;sr; nrhd;dhh; vd;W $wpdhh;. clNd cjtp Ma;thsh; uhkr;re;jpud; iul;lhplk; gzj;ij nfhLf;fr;nrhd;dhh;. NfhFy;uNk]; gpdhg;jypd; gTlh; jltpa 20 500 &gha; Nehl;Lfis & 10000 j;ij iul;lhplk; nfhLj;jhh;. iul;lh; MWKfk; jdJ tyJ iffshy; mj;njhifia ngw;Wf;nfhz;lhh; xU fhf;fp ftiu vLjJ mjw;Fs; me;j gzj;ij itj;J Jdpia kbj;J jd;dplk; itj;Jf;nfhz;lhh; NfhFy; uNkRk; gzj;ij vz;zpg;ghUq;fs; vd;W nrhd;djw;F Njitapy;iy vd;W iul;lh; $wpdhh;. gpwF jdJ Kjyhap gpuhd;]p]; Nltpl; [hd; mth;fSf;F 9842453300 I gad;gLj;jp njhifia xg;gilj;j tpguj;ij $wp mij fd;ghhk; nra;J nfhs;Sq;fs; vd;W $wp iul;lh; MWKfj;jplk; nry;Nghid nfhLj;jhh; nry;Nghid ngw;Wf;nfhz;l iul;lh; MWKfk; gzj;ij ngw;Wf;nfhz;lkhfTk; mij gw;wp Vjk; ftiyg;glNtz;lhk; vd;Wk; Nghdpy; njhptpj;jhh;. Nkw;fz;litfis ehd; thrw;gbapy; epd;Wnfhz;L cd;dpg;ghf Nfl;Lf;nfhz;bUe;Njd;. 04.06.2002 y; 6 Ngh; [Pg;gpy; fk;ngdpf;F te;jhh;fs;. .......; mg;NghJ ,d;];ngf;lh; vq;fs; Xdhplk; &15000 gzk; Nfl;lhh;.... kWehs; 18 k; Njjp ehDk; XdUk; kPz;Lk; mq;F nrd;Nwhk; mg;NghJ iul;lUk; v]; I k; mq;Nf ,Ue;jhh;fs; Vd; ehfg;gl;bdk; te;jPh;fs; vd;W Nfl;lhh;fs; myp xd;Wk; nrhy;ytpy;iy myp vdf;F njhpahJ vd;W nrhy;yptpl;lhh; Nghdpy; jhd; tpguk; njhpAk; nrhd;djhy; Nehpy; te;J tpguk; njhpe;J nfhs;syhk; vd;W ehq;fs; te;Js;Nshk; vd;W Xdh; nrhd;dhh; my;yh gpur;ridAk; Muk;gpf;fpwJ cq;fs; Nghl;bahsh;njhd; vq;fSf;F Ngg;gUk; ikAk; ,Ue;jhy; NfhJk; cq;fs; Nky; NfQ Nghlyhk; vd;W uhl;lUk; v]; I Ak; nrhd;dhh;. The evidence of P.W.4:- ehq;fs; nrd;Nwhk; ehd; mYtyfk; cs;Ns nrd;W ,d;];ngf;lh; kzptz;zd; ,y;iyah ehd; jQ;rhThpy; ,Ue;J tUfpNwd; vd;W nrhd;Ndd; mlNd v]; I uhkr;re;jpud; ,d;];ngf;lh; ,y;iy iul;lh; MWKfj;jplk; nfhLj;JtpLq;fs; vd;W nrhd;dTld; ehd; iul;lh; MWKfj;jplk; nrd;W nfhLj;jTld; mij mth; jd; tyJ ifahy; thq;fp mq;fpUe;j xU fhf;fp fthpy; me;j gzj;ij vLj;J itj;Jf;nfhz;L ftiu cs;Ns itj;Jf;nfhz;lhh; gzk; & 10000 thq;fpf; nfhz;lij vqfs; Xdhplk; nrhy;yp tpLq;fs; vd;W nrhy;yp mtuplk; vd; Nghid nfhLj;Njd; clNd mtUk; vq;fs; Xdhplk; gzj;ij thq;fpf;nfhz;Nld; vd;W nrhy;y cq;fs; Xdh; ,q;Nf b.vy;.gp gpur;ridahf cs;sJ vd;W $w mjw;F iul;lh; MWKfk; mij Ms; ,Uf;fpwJ ftdpj;Jf;nfhs;syhk; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. 12.5.The above evidence is substantial, concrete, cogent, definite and 17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis clear. Hence, this Court finds every reason to treat their evidence as trustworthy. Their testimonies are without any infirmities about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. Therefore, the prosecution proved their common intention to receive illegal gratification through the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4. 12.6.The sequence of the demand of bribe amount as narrated above shows acceptance of the bribe amount by A3 on the direction of A2 on the date of trap and the specific evidence of P..W.3 and P.W.4 that A2 informed about the absence of A1 and A1 asked to receive the bribe amount and A2 directed to receive the bribe amount and A3 received the bribe amount and contacted P.W.2 over phone and affirmed the receipt of the bribe amount from P.W.4 all clearly come under “the concept of constructive demand and receipt” as propounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases: 12.6.1.D. Velayutham v. State, (2015) 12 SCC 348 at page 357 “15. Though this Court has stressed the need and significance of phenolphthalein as a trap device in corruption cases, so as to allay doubts about the actual receiving of bribes by accused persons, there may be cases where there are multiple demanders in a common or conjoint bribe demand, and for whatsoever reason, only one receives the sum on their behalf, and is 18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis entrapped in consequence. Depending on strength of the remainder of evidence, in these cases, constructive receipt by co-accused persons is open to establishment by the prosecution, in order that those who intermediately obtain bribes be latched with equal culpability as their co-accused and entrapped receivers. This will, of course, discount those cases where the trap is successful only against one and not the other official, the latter having refused to accept the bribe tendered. In this case, the trap would have clearly failed against such an official, and there could be no question of the application of constructive receipt. If the receipt and handling of bribe money by Accused 2 so convincingly and inexorably points towards his custodianship of part of the same bribe amount on behalf of his superior officer, namely Accused 1, then Accused 1 cannot rely on mere non-handling/non-receipt of the bribe money, as his path to exculpation. This Court's construal of anti-corruption cases is sensitive even to these byzantine methods of bribe-taking, and where an evader escapes a trap, constructive receipt has to be an alternate means of fastening criminal culpability. Emphasis supplied 19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12.6.2.Further, in the case of Billa Nagul Sharief v. State of A.P., reported in (2010) 11 SCC 575 19. The contention that grievance can be remedied by the superior officer in the hierarchy of the system of the department concerned, if accepted, perhaps there shall be no case in which the demand for bribe can be made. The feeling of a common man that when the work is enshrined to different persons bribe is demanded by one of them, when all are invariably in collusion, cannot be lost sight of. If senior officers ensure that the works of the citizens are done without payment of bribe, junior officers and employees may abandon the demand and this country would not have prominently figured as one of the most corrupt nations of the world, as it is widely accepted that the corruption flows from the top. Here the de facto complainant was entitled to have the composite licence but he was not willing to pay the bribe demanded, accordingly he had approached the Anti- Corruption Bureau and we do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of the de facto complainant. 12.6.3.In the case of Guruviah v. State, reported in (2019) 8 SCC 396 has held as follows: 10. In T. Shankar Prasad [T. Shankar Prasad v. State of A.P., (2004) 3 SCC 753 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 870] , the prime accused directed the 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis money to be handed over to the co-accused when both of them were caught on the spot and the money recovered from the co-accused. The co-accused took the plea that there was no proof of demand and acceptance against him. A similar defence was taken that he had accepted the same in the bona fide belief towards advance tax. Referring to Section 20 of the Act, noticing that there was no material towards any advance tax liability, it was observed: (SCC p. 766, para 24) “24. … An overall consideration of the materials sufficiently substantiates, in the case on hand, the prevalence of a system and methodology cleverly adopted by the accused that the demand will be specified when both the accused were present and thereafter as and when A-1 puts his signature the party has to meet A-2 at his seat for fixing the seal and making entry in the register to make the process complete only after collecting the amount already specified by A-1 in A-2's presence. The involvement of both of them in a well- planned and cleverly managed device to systematically collect money stood sufficiently established on the evidence let in by the prosecution.” 12.7.From the above, it is clear that A1 to A3 acted with with simultaneous consensus of mind to demand and receive the bribe amount and in furtherance of the common intention, A2 directed A3 to receive the bribe amount and A3 received and kept in the cover. Further, The Trap Laying Officer/P.W.10, 21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis conducted phenolphthalein test in the hands of A3 and the same was turned into pink color and the amount was recovered under the recovery mahazar. A3 has not given any explanation about the change of colour and the custody of the bribe amount. There is no dispute over the preparation of the recovery mahazar on the date of occurrence. Therefore, the recovery also clearly proved and there is no explanation on the side of A2 also. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt constructive demand and acceptance and every ingredients to constitute offence under section 34 of IPC, 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 12.8.According to the learned counsel on record, there is a contradiction relating to the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.10, which reads as follows: P.W.3 Rkhh; 04.30 kzp mstpy; Nkw;gb NfhFy; uNk\; vjphpfs; cjtp Ma;thsh; uhkr;re;jpud; iul;lh; MWKfk; MfpNahiu re;jpj;jjhfTk; cjtp Ma;thsh; nrhy;yp Nkw;gb iul;lh; MWKfk; ehd; nfhLj;j &.10000 yQ;rg; gzj;ij thq;fpf; nfhz;ljhfTk; njhptpj;jhh;. cld; muR rhl;rpfs; KfkJ fT]; kw;Wk; Ma;thsh;fSld; Nkw;gb rptpy; rg;is mYtyfj;jpw;F tpiue;J nrd;Nwd;. NghFk; topapy; rhl;rp uNk\; mth;fsplk; ele;jij gw;wp tprhhpf;fj;jhd; Nkw;gb mYtyfj;jpy; Eioe;jTld; cjtp Ma;thsh; gzk; nfhz;L te;J ,Uf;fpwPh;fsh vd;W Nfl;lhh;. Ma;thsh; vq;Nf vd;W jhd; Nfl;ljhfTk; Ma;thsh; te;JtpLthh;. Mth; gzj;ij thq;fp itf;fr; nrhd;djhfTk; mth; 22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis nrhd;djpd; Nghpy;jhd; iul;luplk; gzj;ij nfhLj;jjhf nrhd;dhh;. ,J rk;ge;jkhf muR rhl;rp fNzrid tprhhpf;f Nkw;gb NfhFy; uNk\;f;F kw;Wk; gpuhd;rp]; kw;Wk; ghh;l;bfSld; mYtyfj;jpw;Fs; nrd;Nwd;... P.W.10 ...nghwpitg;G eltbf;ifapd; NghJ vjphpfspd; mYtyfj;jpy; ,Ue;J ehd; vt;tsT Jhuj;jpy; epd;wpUe;Njd; vd nrhy;y KbAkh vd;why; Mtzq;fspy; mf;fk;gf;fj;jpy; vd;W jhd; Fwpg;gpl;Ls;Nsd; Jhuk; Fwpg;gpl;L nrhy;ytpy;iy Rkhh; 50 60 mb Jhuk; ,Uf;fyhk;. vjphpfspd; mYtyfj;jpw;F cs;Ns nrd;W NfhFy;uNk\; vd;gthplk; ,Ue;J ngw;w yQ;rgzk; gw;wp Nfl;f vjphp MWKfk; Nki[ kPJ ,Ue;j fhf;fp ftiu vLj;J M[h; nra;jhh; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. 13.This Court perused the above evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.10 as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and this Court finds no material contradiction relating to the foundational facts of the prosecution case. In this case, the foundational facts, namely, the demand and acceptance have been clearly deposed by the witnesses namely P.W.4 and P.W.5. The learned counsel further submitted that P.W.2 had motive against A1 and sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Thanjavur on 01.04.2002 and in the said complaint he has not stated about the demand of bribe. The non-mentioning of the demand of bribe amount in the said complaint is immaterial. The evidence of 23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis P.W.2 is that he faced the disturbance from the department CS-CID. Therefore, the said circumstances itself shows the probable case of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. In the said circumstances, the delay and the motive alleged by the learned defence counsel cannot be accepted. In all aspects, the prosecution, clearly proved the demand and acceptance. This Court finds no merit in the criminal appeals and hence, the conviction passed against the appellants for the charged offence is hereby confirmed. 14.Accordingly, these appeals are partly allowed with the following terms: (i)conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge- cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam in S.C.No.20 of 2014 dated 22.12.2017 for the offence under Sections 7 r/w 34 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Section 13(21)(d) r/w 13(2) r/w 34 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby confirmed. (ii) The sentence of imprisonment to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 r/w 34 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and for the offence under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) r/w 34 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is hereby reduced to one year. (iii) The respective fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo 3 months year simple imprisonment is confirmed. 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (iv)Bail bonds executed by the appellants herein are hereby cancelled and the Court below is hereby directed to secure the appellants to undergo the remaining part of sentence of imprisonment. 15.05.2025 NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No vsg/sbn To 1.The learned Special Judge -cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, at Kumbakonam. 2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, (DV & AC-Thanjavur, 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section (Records) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN.J, vsg/sbn Crl.A.(MD).Nos.21 and 30 of 2018 15.05.2025 26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis