CRL A/260/2018 of K.MANIAN, M.60 YEARS Vs THE STATE REP BY on 16 October 2026

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 28.03.2018, in Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2011, on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore (‘the trial Court’), by which the appellant, sole accused, was found guilty of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’). For the offence under Section 7, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. For the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)

(d) , he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. The sentences being ordered to run concurrently

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- (a) The defacto complainant/PW.2 was working as a sales man at Tata Telecom Service. He attended an interview conducted by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and he was selected for the post of salesman. In order to join the new post he was asked to produce a physical fitness certificate. Hence on 12.08.2008 he went to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and approached the appellant /record Clerk in the Residential Medical Officer's office.

The appellant instructed him to purchase the application form for obtaining physical fitness certificate.

(b) Thereafter, the appellant took him to the Duty doctor/PW.4, who had examined PW.2, filled up the fitness certificate form and directed the appellant to affix the official seal. However, the appellant had not handed over the fitness certificate but demanded a sum of Rs.150/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for issuance of certificate. The defacto complainant/PW.2 pleaded that he is in financially poor and had no money to pay the illegal gratification, however the appellant insisted for money. The defacto complainant / PW.2 informed that he will bring the money on the next day and left the hospital.

(c) Thereafter the defacto complainant/PW.2 felt ashamed that being a educated person and even for getting a physical fitness certificate he has to pay illegal gratification. Unwilling to pay the amount the defacto complainant/PW.2 went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption on the next day on 13.08.2008 at 10.30 am and met Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption/P.W.9 and lodged the complaint /Ex.P.3.

(d) The Inspector of Police/ PW.9 enquired the defacto complainant and having found the complaint to be genuine, thereafter he summoned two official witnesses namely

PW.3/Nalliappan who was working as a Personal Assistant to Regional Transport Officer and Nagarajan who was working as a Assistant in Labour Welfare Department. Thereafter at about 11.30 hrs he has registered the First Information Report. The official witnesses interacted with the defacto complainant cleared their doubts and thereafter entrustment mahazhar was prepared between 13.15 -14.20hrs. The pre trap proceedings were explained.

(e) The trap team went to the Government Hospital. P.W.2 was instructed that the tainted money should he handed over to the appellant if he demanded the same. PW.3 was asked to over hear and watch the conversation between the appellant and PW.2 and if the appellant received the bribe amount PW.2 was advised to come out and give the pre-arranged signal. The Trap Laying Officer/PW.9 along with other official witness entered the office enquired PW.2 and PW.3. They were informed that the appellant had demanded the illegal gratification.

(f) PW.2 handed over three fifty notes (Rs.150/-) to the appellant and the appellant received money, counted the notes with both his hands, retained two notes in his pocket and since PW.2 informed that he is facing financial difficulty one fifty rupee note was handed over to the defacto complainant. Thereafter the appellant handed over the physical fitness certificate /Ex.P.6 to the defacto complainant(PW2)

(g) The Trap Laying Officer/ PW.9 summoned PW.5 Administrative officer of the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and in presence of PW.3 and PW. 5 and other official witness recovery proceedings was initiated, hand wash of the appellant turned pink and the bribe amount/M.O.1 was handed over by the appellant and thereafter PW.2 who was asked to stand outside was asked to come inside and he handed over the fitness certificate/Ex.P.6 and Rs.50/- note which he had received from the appellant. The Rs.50/-note was tallied with the entrustment mahazhar and Rs.50/- note was handed over back to PW./2.

(h) Thereafter on completion of trap proceedings the appellant was arrested, his house was searched and search report was marked as Ex.P8. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Thereafter PW.9 handed over the investigation to PW.10 who took up the investigation, recorded the statements of witness and again examined defacto complainant/PW.2 and other official witnesses and PW.4 civil surgeon who issued the fitness certificate and recorded his statements.

(i) The defacto complainant had called the appellant on 30.08.2008 from his mobile number wherein the demand was again reiterated. Hence the call details records of the appellant and PW..2/defacto complainant were collected from the aircel and airtel service providers. P.W.6/Nodal Officer of Airtel and P.W.8/Nodal

Officer of Aircel gave the call details records/Ex.P.9 and 11. The hand wash and shirt collected were sent for forensic examination . The attendance register/Ex.P.14 collected and thereafter on conclusion of investigation for seeking sanction of prosecution the investigation report was submitted before PW.1.

(j) After sanction for prosecution accorded by the Dean (I/c), Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, by proceedings dated 20.01.2010 (Ex.P.2) final report filed and taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2011. Charges under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act framed.

(k) During trial on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.. No document was marked on the side of the defence. On the side of the appellant no witnesses were examined and no document was marked. On the above evidence the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that in this case the defacto complainant /PW.2 had suppressed the vital facts and given a one sided version in his complaint. PW.9/Trap Laying Officer without proper verification of the complaint had proceeded with the investigation with the sole intention of demonstrating the trap has been laid successfully. In this case in the complaint /Ex.P.3, the defacto complainant/PW.2 had mention about his visit to the Government Hospital on 12.08.2008 filling up the application form and submitting the same, however he had suppressed the vital fact that on 12.08.2008 PW.4 had examined him, completed the procedure for issuance of physical fitness certificate.

3.1. Further in the complaint it has been projected on the same day the appellant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.150/- without disclosing the requirement to pay the fee for obtaining certificate. In this case PW.1/Sanction authority had marked Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 in it clearly recorded as per G.O.(2D) No.10, Health and Family Welfare Department dated 01.02.1993 a fee of Rs.20/- was prescribed for obtaining a physical fitness certificate from an Assistant Surgeon and a fee of Rs.50/- for obtaining the same from a Civil Surgeon. PW.4 was the Civil surgeon and the fee prescribed for him for issuance of fitness certificate is Rs. 50/-. In this case PW.2 admitted that he has not paid any charges. PW.4/Civil surgeon who had examined the defacto complainant confirms that the charges for issuance of certificate was neither paid nor collected. The consistent stand of the appellant is that the charges was only collected and not the illegal gratification.

3.2. PW.3 the accompanying official witness has confirms that the defacto complainant has not stated anything with regard to the payment of charges he had only stated that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.150/-. Even in the complaint and the entrustment mahazhar /Ex.P.7.recovery mahazhar /Ex.P.5 it is recorded that the appellant asked for money and not made any demand of illegal gratification. This is further confirmed by the evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5. The appellant when he was arrested he has given his explanation to the PW.9/TLO confirms that it was only the charges for issuance of fitness certificate amount was collected and not the illegal gratification. P.W5 and P.W.9 confirms that the appellant had given explanation during the trap even at the first instance. PW.9 though admits but not recorded the explanation given by the appellant. Thus in this case the vigilance manual procedures not followed.

3.3. He further submitted that in this case from the entrustment mahazhar and the evidence of PW.2 and PW. 9, it is seen that the during pre trap proceedings and drawing of Ex.P.5 it is the Gr.I Constable Palaniraj who had handled the trap amount of three 50 Rupees note and who had demonstrated the pre trap proceedings and he is the person who smeared the phenolphthalein powder and thereafter again handled M.O.1 and thereafter dipped his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution. This demonstration

procedure in unheard off. It is normally the one of the official independent witness who handles the pre trap procedures. This procedures is to show the neutrality and transparency in the trap proceedings. In this case it is the police constable who handled the pre trap proceedings and the amount. He further submitted that in this case the PW.4 confirms that on 12.08.2008 fitness certificate procedure already completed and no fee paid by the defaco complainant/PW.2.

3.4. From Ex.P.1 and the evidence of PW.1 the Dean of Coimbatore Medical College he confirms that the request physical fitness certificate will considered and issued and fee to be collected. It is proved by the appellant that the fees for issuance of physical fitness certificate not paid by PW2. The appellant asked for this amount which has been projected as though it is a demand for bribe amount. Further it is strange to note that the appellant received three fifty rupees note from the decoy/PW2 and the appellant returned back one fifty rupees not to the decoy and later it was verified and recorded in Ex.P.7/recovery mahazhar. In all fairness once it is confirmed that PW.2/decoy had handled and retained one of the three phenolphthalein smeared notes then the Trap Laying Officer ought to have conducted phenolphthalein test by collecting hand wash of the defacto complainant and ought to have seized that one fifty rupees note. In this case no such steps taken. The evidence of PW.2/decoy and PW.3/accompanying witness confirms that the appellant had not demanded any bribe amount. Ex.P.6 /fitness certificate already made ready on 12.08.2008 and on 13.08.2008 after receipt of charges appellant handed over the fitness certificate to PW.2. Hence it is not the case that the appellant had demanded bribe amount for a official act.

3.5. In this case it is admitted fact that PW/.4 civil surgeon or any doctor of the hospital can only give fitness certificate. The appellant a record clerk is only to maintain files in the office and he has no authority to issue fitness certificate. This being the case, projecting the appellant had demanded bribe amount to do an official work and collected the same falls flat. He further submitted that the yet another circumstance is that the PW.2 had called the appellant from his mobile phone 9976775952 on 13.08.2008 about 10.56 a.m., and spoken 28 seconds at about 11.01 for 7 seconds and 11.12.a.m., for 64seconds to project as though there was demand made. In this case it is admitted by PW.2 that PW.2 had come to the office at 10.30am.,lodged a complaint and registered the First Information Report at about 11.30 a.m., He further admits that from 10.30.am., till the trap team leaving the vigilance office PW.2 was present in the office, confirming that all three calls made only to create evidence as though there was demand. All the three calls are incoming calls from PW.2 , Added to it PW.6 and 8 are the nodal officers from Airtel and Aircel who had issued Exps.9 and 11 call details records but those documents were not accompanied by the requisite certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act, certificate hence on the factual aspect and legal aspect is inadmissible., 3.6. The learned counsel had submitted that from the evidence of PW.2 it is clear that PW2 has suppressed vital facts and projected the fee to be paid for getting fitness certificates projected it is a demand of bribe and not disclosed the true facts to the Trap Laying Officer, P.W9. PW.9/Trap Laying Officer failed to conduct proper background check prior to registration of the First Information Report, PW.9 and in a hasty manner registered First Information Report and had focussed in success of the trap. From the evidence of PW.2,3 and Ex.P.5 and Ex.P7 there was no demand of any bribe amount and the request made by the appellant is for collection of charges and fee for the fitness certificate, which is confirmed by PW./1 and Ex.P.1. Ex.P.4 the appellant has given an explanation that it was only a fee for issuance of certificate and this is confirmed by the evidence of PW.5 which is admitted by PW.9/TLO. Thus in this case the sine qua non that there must be bribe demand, acceptance and recovery. In this case there is no demand of any bribe which clearly proved by the evidence of witnesses and from the material produced. Thus the conviction of the trial Court is not sustainable 3.7. Further the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act (as it stood at the time of the occurrence in June 2008) requires proof that the public servant accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official act. The offence under Section 13(1)(d) requires proof that the public servant obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for both offences, and that mere possession or recovery of currency notes from the accused, without proof of demand, is not sufficient to convict. The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 has clarified that, in the absence of direct evidence because the complainant turns hostile or is unavailable, demand may be established by other evidence, including circumstantial evidence. That decision does not dispense with proof of demand; it only widens the manner in which it may be proved. The demand must still be established by cogent and legally admissible evidence, and the Court cannot presume it.

3.8. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is available only after the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or obtained gratification. It is, by the very language of Section 20(1), confined to offences under Section 7, Section 11 and Section 13(1)(a) and (b) of the PC Act, and does not extend to Section 13(1)(d). Where the demand itself is not proved, the acceptance of money cannot be characterised as acceptance of gratification, and the presumption is not triggered at all. It is trite that a Court can base a conviction only on the evidence actually adduced before it. Evidence, as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, consists of the statements which the Court permits or requires the witnesses to make before it. A Judge is not entitled to improve upon the statement of a witness, however confident he may be that the witness meant to say what he supplies, and certainly not to cure a deficiency in the prosecution evidence on the very ingredient on which the whole case turns. The trial Court has done precisely that, and the finding of demand thereby stands vitiated. The prosecution has not pointed to any other direct or circumstantial evidence which, independent of the interpolation, establishes the demand. The official witness could, at best, speak to what he saw and heard at the time of the handing over, and the prosecution case itself is that the alleged demand preceded the trap, having been made earlier when the document was presented for registration. The recitals in Ex.P2, and the allegations in the complaint, are not substantive evidence. The learned Special Judge has also not dealt with the specific plea of the defence the judgment merely records the conclusion without reasons. A judgment of conviction under a penal statute, particularly one in which the entire case turns on the credibility and content of the testimony of a single witness, must disclose the process of reasoning by which the Court has found each ingredient proved. In its absence, the findings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, demand of illegal gratification has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that The defacto complainant/P.W.2, who was selected for the post of salesman in Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, approached the appellant, a Record Clerk at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, on 12.08.2008 for obtaining a physical fitness certificate. Though P.W.4, the duty doctor, examined him and given the certificate, the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.150/- as illegal gratification for issuing the same. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W.2 lodged a complaint/Ex.P.3 before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department on 13.08.2008. Based on the complaint, P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, registered the First Information Report and arranged a trap in the presence of official witnesses. During the trap proceedings, P.W.2 handed over three Rs.50/- currency notes to the appellant. The appellant allegedly retained two notes, returned one note to P.W.2 and handed over the physical fitness certificate/Ex.P.6. The appellant's hand wash turned pink, and the tainted currency notes recovered during the trap recovery proceedings. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested, and further investigation was conducted by P.W.10. The call detail records, forensic materials and attendance register were collected during the investigation.

4.1. In this case P.W2 is the decoy. Pw.3 is the accompanying witness, their evidence are natural. The trap amount /M.O.1 was seized from the appellant which is confirmed the forensic report. The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is corroborated. PW.5 administrative officer was present during the entire recovery proceedings, arrest and recovery. In this case on completion of investigation charge sheet was made ready and submitted before PW.1 who independently applied his mind and gave his sanction for prosecution/Ex.P.2. The chain of events well established by examination of witness PW.2,3,4,5 and 9. The trial Court on the evidence and materials found the appellant had demanded, received and accepted the bribe amount. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, hence he seeks for dismissal of appeal.

5. The Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials on record.

6. It is seen that in this case PW.2 is the defacto complainant, PW3 is the accompanying witness. P.W.2 for getting medical fitness certificate/Ex.P.6 had gone to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore and met the appellant and requested for certificate. He had also submitted an application form and thereafter the appellant had took him to PW.4, who had examined the defacto complainant and signed the fitness certificate/Ex.P.6 directed the appellant to affix the seal and the same was done. Thereafter the appellant had requested for payment of fees for the medical certificate. The PW.2 informed that on the next day he would pay the money and collect the certificate. Unwilling to pay the amount, on the next day i.e.,13.08.2008 he had

gone to the office of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and lodged a complaint.,

7. On perusal of complaint Ex.P.3 it is seen that the complaint is silent about the fitness certificate made ready and not issued,, nowhere in the complaint PW.2 had referred about payment of fee and charges. The payment of charges is legal one which is confirmed by P.W.1 and Ex.P.1. PW.1 also confirms the same. In this case the non payment of charges not whispered by PW.2 in his complaint either to P.W.3 or other official witness or to P.W9 /TLO. PW.3 confirms that PW.2 not stated anything about fee. PW.9 confirms that he has not conducted any investigation with regard to the payment of charge and fee. Thus the investigation s proceed on one sided version given by PW.2 on assumption and presumption that there was demand of illegal gratification by the appellant.

8. Further from the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and entrustment mahazhar and recovery mahazhar it is clearly recorded that the appellant not demanded any amount as illegal gratification. He had asked money for the charges to be paid and nothing as illegal gratification. It is also strange to see that in this case the appellant is said to have received Rs.150/- and out of it Rs.50/- was handed back to the defacto complainant, which is again a unusual factor. The person who is so enticed in demanding a bribe amount would never hand over the amount back.

9. Further in this case immediately after trap the appellant had given explanation that the amount collected is for the charges for issuance of fitness certificate and not the bribe amount. Strangely PW.2 and PW.3 denies such explanation but PW.5/administrative officer and PW.9/TLO admit that the appellant had given such explanation that the amount received is only for issuance of fitness certificate and not a bribe.

10. In this case PW.9/TLO admits that except for complaint /Ex.P.3 no other supporting documents produced by the PW.2 . PW.2 and 3 confirms the same, In all fairness PW.9/Trap Laying Officer prior to registration of the case and laying a trap should have asked for supporting documents to confirm the allegation and thereafter he should have verified whether there was any demand of bribe.. The PW.9/Trap Laying Officer admits that he has not produced any materials to show that there was background check made about the appellant.

11. In this case yet another strange factor is that the Gr.I Constable of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department had done in the demonstration process and he is the person who handled the trap amount and demonstrated the pre trap proceedings. Neutrality lost against the established procedure.

12. An another attempt has been made to sum out implicated that there was prior demand of bribe by the appellant and PW.6 and PW,8 the service provider of aircel and airtel and ExP.s9 and 11 marked. It is seen that it is only an incoming call and on 13.08.2008 about 10.56 a.m., spoken 28 seconds at about 11.01 for 7 seconds and 11.12.a.m., for 64seconds to project as though there was demand made. Admittedly during that time the defacto complainant was in the office of V&DC which is confirmed by PW.9 /TLO. This calls were generated to create records from the V&DC office. Added to it PW.9 and P.W.11 are without 65(B) certificate and it no evidentiary value. In this case admittedly demand of bribe which is sine qua non is not proved.

13. Demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non of an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d). Mere possession or recovery of tainted currency, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, does not constitute the offence and both must be proved, whether by direct or circumstantial evidence, before presumption under Section 20 can be raised. The presumption is rebuttable, and the accused need only to displace it by preponderance of probabilities, which he may do by cross-examination, by the prosecution's own material, or by defence evidence, and not necessarily by leading evidence. Section 20 by its terms applies to offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(a) and (b); it does not extend to Section 13(1)(d). Further the appellant has probabilized defence by cross examination of witnesses and from the materials available.

14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.09.2019, passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram, in Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2011, is set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. 16.10.2026 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mpk To

1. The Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore

2. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption, Coimbatore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. mpk Pre-Deliver Judgment made in CRL.A.No.260 of 2018 16.10.2026