M. SANKARANARAYANAN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused against the judgment of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in Spl. C.C. No. 3 of 2002 dated 12.11.2008 convicted him under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment for each of the charge and also imposed to pay a fine of Rs. 31,000/-, in default to undergo 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment.

(2.) Gist of the case:-

(3.) The prosecution through examining the witnesses PW1 to PW17 and marking Exs.P1 to P20 and M.Os.1 to 7, had substantiated the charges against the accused. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has questioned the trial Court judgment on the ground that the entire scenario has been created by one Thangavelu, former colleague of the appellant, since Mr. Thangavelu was trapped by DV and AC, to wreck vengeance, he has set up the complaint through PW- 2[Mr. Sathishkumar], who is none other than the brother-in-law of the said Mr. Thangavelu. One Iyyakkal, from whom the de facto complainant [Mr. Sathishkumar] has taken power of attorney to construct three storied building and for which, he sought for building plan approval, is sister of Mr. Thangavelu. The trial Court has convicted the appellant relying upon the evidence of PW2 [Mr. Sathishkumar] and PW3 [Mr. Palanisamy]. Unmindful of the fact that both of them are close friends and the complaint has been motivated by Mr. Thangavelu the brother-in-law of PW2 [Mr. Sathishkumar]. The discrepancies between the evidence of PW2[Mr. Sathishkumar] and PW3 [Mr. Palanisamy] how they know PW9 [Ms. Iyyakkal] has not been taken note by the trial Court, while rendering the conviction judgment. In the absence of cogent evidence to prove the demand of any illegal gratification by the appellant which is sine non qua to base any presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant. Further, the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the long delay in lodging the complaint itself belies the truthfulness of the de facto complainant and furthermore, the appellant has recommended to reject the regularisation application as early as on 18.11.2000 itself. Therefore, the allegation of demanding illegal gratification on 18.12.2000 and 27.12.2000, are concocted story designed by Mr. Thangavelu and the same was executed through PW2[Mr. Sathishkumar] and PW3[Mr. Palanisamy]. Therefore, the trial Court judgment is liable to be set aside and this appeal ought to be allowed.