CRL A/506/2018 of MR.R.MANIVEL, AGED 51 YEARS Vs THE STATE REP. BY on 16 October 2026

JUDGMENT

The appellant/accused, who was convicted by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2017 by judgment dated 10.08.2018, has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.

2. The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo four years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo four months of simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo four years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo four months of simple imprisonment. 3 . The case of the Prosecution:

-

3.1. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the TNEB/TANGEDCO Office at Avarampalayam, Coimbatore District. He demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the de facto complainant, Baladhandapani (P.W.2), as illegal gratification for providing a new electricity service connection to a house constructed in the name of the de facto complainant's wife, Velumani.

3.2. The house consisted of a ground floor and a first floor, and each portion had been separately assessed by the Coimbatore Corporation. Consequently, the de facto complainant sought two independent electricity service connections. During February 2015, one of the applications was processed, and the corresponding service connection was energised. However, the appellant raised an objection to the second application on the ground that the two portions were not physically segregated and that an internal staircase connected the ground floor with the first floor. According to the appellant, the portions could not, therefore, be treated as independent units. The de facto complainant was advised to submit the second application in May 2015.

3.3. On 23.05.2015, the appellant contacted the de facto complainant over the telephone and demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification for providing the second service connection.

3.4. On 01.06.2015, at about 10.00 a.m., the de facto complainant visited the appellant's office. At that time, the appellant initialled the application and recommended that it be processed. He directed the Commercial Inspector, Subramani (P.W.5), to prepare the estimate, while the licensed contractor, Patturajan (P.W.8), had furnished the relevant energy consumption particulars.

3.5. On the same day, the estimated cost was calculated at Rs.16,450/-, which the de facto complainant paid to P.W.5. However, the alleged demand for illegal gratification continued. Consequently, the de facto complainant approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing and lodged a complaint on 01.06.2015.

3.6. The Trap Laying Officer, Inspector of Police Vijayalakshmi (P.W.10), examined the de facto complainant and ascertained whether he was willing to stand by his complaint. On 02.06.2015, she sent the de facto complainant, accompanied by Ravichandran, a Head Constable, to meet the appellant. A voice recorder was kept in the de facto complainant's pocket to record their conversation.

3.7. During the meeting, the appellant reiterated his demand for Rs.15,000/-. The de facto complainant explained that he had already paid the requisite fees and charges and that his wife was undergoing medical treatment. He further stated that he had only Rs.7,000/- with him. The appellant accepted Rs.5,000/- and directed the de facto complainant to pay the balance of Rs.10,000/- on the following day.

3.8. After returning from the appellant's office, the de facto complainant informed P.W.10 of the events. P.W.10 proceeded with the necessary formalities, registered the First Information Report, and secured the presence of official witnesses, including Annadurai (P.W.3) and Usharani. The pre-trap proceedings were conducted, and the procedure and significance of the phenolphthalein test were explained to the witnesses.

3.9. The de facto complainant brought Rs.10,000/- for the proposed trap. Before leaving the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office, he contacted the appellant over the telephone and confirmed his availability. Thereafter, the de facto complainant, P.W.3, and the trap team proceeded towards the appellant's office.

3.10. The de facto complainant and P.W.3 were dropped near the office, and P.W.3 was instructed to accompany the de facto complainant, observe the proceedings, and overhear their conversation. When they reached the office, the appellant was not present at his seat. Upon being contacted over the telephone, he informed the de facto complainant that he was having food at the restaurant opposite the office.

3.11. The de facto complainant and P.W.3 went to the restaurant and waited for approximately ten minutes. Thereafter, the appellant, the de facto complainant, and P.W.3 entered the appellant's office together.

3.12. It is the further case of prosecution that the appellant again demanded the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. The de facto complainant handed over the tainted currency notes, which the appellant received, counted with both hands, and kept in the drawer of the table on his right-hand side. The appellant thereafter informed the de facto complainant that the electricity service connection would be provided on the following day.

3.13. The de facto complainant then gave the pre-arranged signal. P.W.10, accompanied by Usharani and the other members of the trap team, entered the office. The de facto complainant and P.W.3 narrated the events that had transpired. The phenolphthalein test was conducted, and the appellant's hand wash was collected.

3.14. When questioned about the tainted currency notes, the appellant took the money from the table drawer and handed it over to the Trap Laying Officer. The Executive Engineer (P.W.4), the appellant's superior officer, was informed and subsequently arrived at the office. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.12) was also informed and reached the scene.

3.15. A recovery mahazar was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. The appellant, P.W.3, P.W.5, and the other witnesses signed the mahazar, while P.W.4 and P.W.12 signed its final page. The appellant was thereafter produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.

3.16. P.W.10 initially conducted the investigation, examined witnesses, collected documents, and forwarded a requisition seeking sanction for prosecution. Subsequently, upon her promotion and transfer, P.W.13, C.Rajesh, took over the investigation, obtained the sanction order, and filed the charge sheet.

3.17. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1, and five documents were marked.

3.18. Upon completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

4. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

-

4.1. Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant had never demanded any bribe from the de facto complainant. According to him, the appellant had initially rejected the request for two independent electricity service connections because the building lacked physical segregation between the ground floor and the first floor, which were connected by an internal staircase.

4.2. It was further submitted that one electricity service connection had already been approved in February 2015 without any demand for illegal gratification. This circumstance, according to the learned Senior Counsel, militated against the prosecution's allegation that the appellant had demanded a bribe.

4.3. The learned Senior Counsel contended that although the prosecution alleged that the appellant had demanded a bribe from 23.05.2015 onwards, the complaint was lodged only on 01.06.2015. Further, the prosecution alleged that on 02.06.2015, the appellant reiterated his demand in the presence of the de facto complainant and Ravichandran, the Head Constable, who had accompanied him with a voice recorder. However, neither Ravichandran nor the voice recorder recordings were produced before the Trial Court. The alleged sum of Rs.5,000/- received on 02.06.2015 was also not seized.

4.4. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the de facto complainant had suppressed material facts concerning the eligibility of the building for a second electricity service connection. The appellant had already recorded his objection regarding the absence of physical segregation and the existence of an internal staircase. The de facto complainant, being aware that the second connection might not be sanctioned in the ordinary course, had lodged a false complaint and arranged for the trap.

4.5. It was further contended that the respondent police had failed to conduct a proper investigation into the background of the appellant and the circumstances surrounding the complaint. Instead, they had hastily proceeded against him and foisted a false case.

4.6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that P.W.2 had previously lodged similar complaints before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing against public servants, resulting in the arrest of six persons without an adequate preliminary enquiry. According to the defence, this demonstrated that the complainant had been using the Vigilance authorities to exert pressure on public servants to obtain approvals that might otherwise not have been granted.

4.7. It was also contended that the appellant had been serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the office concerned for approximately seven years and had discharged his duties diligently without any prior complaint. The defence further alleged that the appellant's association with a labour union affiliated with a political party then in opposition might have contributed to the institution of the false case.

4.8. The learned Senior Counsel questioned the credibility of P.W.3 and the other official witness, Usharani, contending that they had been secured without proper summons or supporting records and were merely witnesses willing to support the prosecution. He also argued that no proper preliminary enquiry had been conducted in accordance with Rule 42(2) of the Vigilance Manual.

4.9. With regard to the telephone records, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the prosecution relied upon mobile numbers 9443720771, used by the appellant, and 9363112222, used by the de facto complainant. Though P.W.9 and P.W.11, the respective nodal officers of the telecommunications service providers, had been examined, the ownership and actual usage of the said numbers had not been satisfactorily established.

4.10. It was submitted that P.W.9's evidence referred to the de facto complainant's migration from one service provider to another, while P.W.11 produced the call details relating to the relevant numbers. However, Ex.P16 did not conclusively establish the ownership and usage of the numbers. The Trial Court had, therefore, erred in relying upon the telephone records.

4.11. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that P.W.1, the sanctioning authority, had admitted that permanent physical segregation of the portions of a building was necessary for the grant of two independent electricity service connections. The de facto complainant, who was employed as a time- server, had suppressed material facts in the complaint, Ex.P3, and in the application, Ex.P2, submitted in the name of his wife, Velumani.

4.12. It was contended that P.W.14, the Assistant Executive Engineer at the Peelamedu TANGEDCO Office, who held additional charge of the Avarampalayam Office, and D.W.1, the subsequent Executive Engineer, had confirmed the discrepancies in the application and the relevant departmental records.

4.13. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that P.W.2 had admitted that no inspection of the building had been conducted before the approval of the estimate and collection of the estimated charges. He further submitted that P.W.2 had stated that, at approximately 2.20 p.m. on the day of the trap, the appellant was not at his seat and no one was present in the office, whereas P.W.3 had given a contrary version by stating that two or three persons were present.

4.14. According to the defence, these contradictions supported the possibility that the complainant had taken advantage of the appellant's absence and placed the tainted currency notes in the table drawer without any demand or acceptance by the appellant.

4.15. It was also submitted that, by the date of the trap, the estimate had already been prepared and the requisite charges had been collected. The remaining work, including installation of the meter and energisation of the service connection, was to be completed by the concerned line inspector, foreman, and other field staff, subject to the availability of meters. Hence, there was no reason for the appellant to withhold the application for want of a bribe.

4.16. Referring to the evidence of P.W.5, the Commercial Inspector, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that P.W.5 had confirmed that the appellant initialled the application on 01.06.2015 and forwarded it for processing. The estimate was prepared based on the particulars furnished by P.W.8, the licensed contractor, and a sum of Rs.16,450/- was collected from the de facto complainant. Once the estimate had been prepared and the charges collected, the subsequent work of providing the connection did not fall exclusively within the appellant's domain.

4.17. The defence also questioned the prosecution's failure to examine any person from the restaurant opposite the electricity office to establish that the appellant had been having food there when the complainant arrived.

4.18. It was further submitted that P.W.3 and P.W.10 had admitted that, until approximately 1.30 p.m. on 03.06.2015, they had not seen any file or departmental record indicating that the de facto complainant's application had been withheld owing to non-payment of a bribe.

4.19. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that P.W.12 had not examined Velumani, the owner of the building and the applicant for the additional electricity service connection. P.W.4, the Executive Engineer, had also not deposed to having witnessed the appellant demand or receive any bribe.

4.20. It was further contended that P.W.5 had admitted that the estimated amount had not been entered in certain relevant registers. P.W.4 and P.W.14 had stated that the property was required to be physically inspected before the estimate could be prepared and collected. According to the defence, the estimate had been collected without the requisite signature and approval of the appellant.

4.21. The learned Senior Counsel also questioned the presence of P.W.5 during the recovery proceedings, contending that he was not present when the alleged bribe amount was handed over. His subsequent participation in the recovery mahazar was, therefore, relied upon as a circumstance casting doubt on the fairness of the trap proceedings.

4.22. The defence further relied upon the evidence of P.W.6, Assistant Director of the Forensic Department, who had stated that the hand-wash samples were white in colour and had not turned pink, indicating the absence of a positive phenolphthalein reaction.

4.23. The learned Senior Counsel referred to the evidence of P.W.7 concerning the procedure for providing additional electricity service connections and submitted that the actual work of providing the connection was performed by the lineman and foreman.

4.24. It was also argued that P.W.8, the licensed contractor, had not supported the prosecution's case regarding the retention of Ex.P2 at the instance of the appellant. Consequently, the foundational allegation that the application had been deliberately withheld by the appellant and was not processed owing to non-payment of a bribe had not been established.

4.25. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that P.W.12, who took over the investigation from P.W.10, had participated in the trap proceedings and subsequently conducted a substantial part of the investigation. This, according to the defence, compromised the independence of the investigation and demonstrated prejudice against the appellant.

4.26. It was also submitted that P.W.14, who assumed additional charge of the appellant's post, had received charge memoranda and was compelled to process the de facto complainant's application on 04.06.2015. The defence alleged that the connection was provided in haste, under pressure from the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, and without following the prescribed departmental procedure, thereby, enabling the de facto complainant to achieve his objective.

4.27. In support of his defence, the appellant examined D.W.1, the successor officer, who spoke about the prescribed procedure and the irregularities in the processing of the application. The Trial Court, however, failed to give due consideration to these circumstances and instead relied upon witnesses whose evidence was said to be unreliable.

4.28. The learned Senior Counsel additionally challenged the validity of the sanction order, Ex.P1, contending that it had been issued without independent application of mind or proper satisfaction. He also emphasised that the voice recording, which formed the basis for proceeding with the investigation, had not been produced before the Court and that there was no material to establish that a proper background verification of the appellant had been undertaken.

4.29. The defence further contended that the electronic records and the certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, produced through P.W.9 and P.W.11, did not comply with the statutory requirements and ought not to have been relied upon.

4.30. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, which provides that an incomplete application for the supply of electricity should be returned after indicating the defects. He submitted that the appellant had acted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and relied upon Exs.D4 and D5 in support of his contention.

4.31. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) G.Sekar v. Inspector of Police, MANU/TN/1065/2014, in Crl.A.No.161 of 2008, dated 04.07.2014, for the proposition that where tainted money is planted by the de facto complainant without a demand for illegal gratification, the prosecution case cannot be sustained merely on the basis of recovery. It was argued that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 suggested that the money had been placed in the appellant's drawer when he was absent.

(ii) Tr.V.R.Renga Raju v. State, MANU/TN/3872/2017, in Crl.A.No.409 of 2017, dated 27.11.2017, for the proposition that where the tainted money is found on a table or in a drawer without proof of its demand and acceptance by the accused, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot automatically be invoked.

(iii) M.H.Ansari and Others v. The State, MANU/TN/2087/2018, in Crl.A.Nos.536 and 537 of 2010, dated 24.04.2018, for the proposition that non- examination of the owner of the building, namely Velumani, in relation to the application for the additional electricity service connection was fatal to the prosecution.

(iv) N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, MANU/SC/0051/2021, in Crl.A.Nos.100 and 101 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021, in support of the submission that the procedure prescribed under Rule 47(1) of the Vigilance Manual, including recording the statement of the accused officer after the phenolphthalein test, had not been followed.

(v) Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), MANU/SC/0250/2023, in Crl.A.No.1669 of 2009, dated 17.03.2023, in support of the contention that the prosecution must establish the foundational facts relating to the demand for illegal gratification. The defence further submitted that the delay between the alleged demand and the lodging of the complaint rendered the prosecution case doubtful.

(vi) Soundarajan v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul, in Crl.A.No.1592 of 2022, dated

17.04.2023, for the proposition that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4.32. Without prejudice to the submissions on the merits, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant had been diagnosed with Stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy. It was therefore requested that his serious medical condition also be taken into consideration.

5. Submissions on behalf of the Prosecution:- 5.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a counter-affidavit and submitted that the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses and marked the relevant documentary and material evidence. The Trial Court had carefully scrutinised the oral and documentary evidence and rendered a reasoned judgment, which did not warrant interference by the appellate Court.

5.2. It was submitted that P.W.1 was the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution and had issued the sanction order, Ex.P1. The appellant had failed to establish any error, omission, or irregularity in the grant of sanction.

5.3. In support of the validity of the sanction, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon Vineeth Narain and Others v. Union of India and Another, reported in AIR 1998 SC 889, and Gurucharan Singh and Others v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in AIR 1978 SC 179, submitting that the requirement of sanction is intended to protect innocent public servants and not to shield those who have committed offences.

5.4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.2 had lodged the complaint on 01.06.2015 and that P.W.10 had examined him and undertaken the necessary preliminary verification. In accordance with the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 187, the complaint was examined before further action was taken.

5.5. It was further submitted that, on 02.06.2015, P.W.2 was sent with Ravichandran, the Head Constable, and a voice recorder to meet the appellant. During that meeting, the appellant reiterated his demand for illegal gratification, accepted Rs.5,000/-, and directed the de facto complainant to pay the balance of Rs.10,000/- on the following day.

5.6. According to the prosecution, when the appellant was subsequently questioned about the status of the de facto complainant's application, P.W.5

stated that he had not received it. The appellant then contacted P.W.8, the licensed contractor, who handed over the application to P.W.5. P.W.5 prepared the estimate for Rs.16,450/-, which was paid by the de facto complainant.

5.7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that P.W.10 verified the complaint and proceeded with the trap arrangements. On 03.06.2015, the pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of P.W.3 and Usharani, and the procedure relating to the phenolphthalein test was explained and documented in the entrustment mahazar.

5.8. The prosecution version was that, after confirming the appellant's availability, P.W.2 proceeded to the office accompanied by P.W.3. As the appellant was not initially present at his seat, the de facto complainant contacted him by mobile phone and was informed that he was at the restaurant opposite the office. P.W.2 and P.W.3 waited for the appellant, after which all three entered the office together.

5.9. It was submitted that the appellant reiterated his demand for the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-, received the tainted currency notes from P.W.2, counted them, and kept them in the drawer of his table. Upon receipt of the pre- arranged signal, P.W.10 and the trap team entered the office and conducted the post-trap proceedings.

5.10. According to the prosecution, the phenolphthalein test was conducted, the hand-wash samples were collected, and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the drawer and handed over by the appellant. The currency notes were counted and verified against the particulars recorded in the entrustment mahazar, Ex.P5.

5.11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that P.W.4, the Executive Engineer, and P.W.12, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, were informed and subsequently arrived at the office. The recovery mahazar, Ex.P10, was prepared in the presence of the witnesses, and the relevant registers and documents, including Exs.P6 to P9, were seized.

5.12. The prosecution also relied upon the estimate, Ex.P11, the telephone records and related documents produced through P.W.9 and P.W.11, and the relevant certificates concerning electronic evidence. Further documents relating to the service connections, departmental proceedings, and registers were obtained from P.W.14 and marked during the trial.

5.13. It was submitted that P.W.8, although he had not fully supported the prosecution, had confirmed the existence of the application, the preparation of the estimate, and the handing over of the application to P.W.5. His evidence was corroborated by P.W.5.

5.14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defence had examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D5. However, the documents relied upon by the defence did not discredit the prosecution evidence. The Trial Court had considered the defence contentions and the relevant exhibits and had given cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case.

5.15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore prayed that the Criminal Appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court be confirmed.

6. Discussion and Findings:-

6.1. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. The oral and documentary evidence available on record has also been carefully examined.

6.2. The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification from P.W.2 and whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court warrant interference.

6.3. The prosecution case is that the wife of P.W.2, Velumani, had constructed a house consisting of a ground floor and a first floor, and that the two portions had been separately assessed by the Coimbatore Corporation. P.W.2 had accordingly sought two independent electricity service connections.

6.4. During February 2015, one service connection was processed and energised. In respect of the second connection, the appellant raised an objection on the ground that the two portions were not physically segregated and were connected by an internal staircase. According to the de facto complainant, the appellant initially advised him to submit the second application at a later date and subsequently demanded Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification for providing the connection.

6.5. The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that, on 23.05.2015, he contacted the appellant over the mobile phone regarding the second service connection and that the appellant demanded Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, on 01.06.2015, P.W.2 visited the appellant's office and enquired about the status of the application.

6.6. At that time, the appellant contacted P.W.5, the Commercial Inspector, and enquired about the application. P.W.5 informed him that the application had not reached him. The appellant then contacted P.W.8, the licensed contractor, who handed over the application along with the relevant particulars to P.W.5.

6.7. The appellant initialled the application and forwarded it for processing. P.W.5 thereafter prepared the estimate, and the de facto complainant was required to pay Rs.16,450/- towards the estimated charges. Since P.W.5 was occupied with other work, the de facto complainant was asked to collect the receipt later. The de facto complainant subsequently lodged the complaint, Ex.P3, stating that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification in connection with the second service connection.

6.8. It is the further case of prosecution that, on 02.06.2015, P.W.2 met the appellant in the presence of Ravichandran, the Head Constable, and that the appellant reiterated his demand. According to P.W.2, the appellant accepted Rs.5,000/- and demanded that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid on the following day. P.W.2 thereafter informed P.W.10 of the events, following which the trap proceedings were arranged.

6.9. On 03.06.2015, the de facto complainant, accompanied by P.W.3, proceeded to the appellant's office after the pre-trap formalities had been completed. Since the appellant was initially absent from his seat, P.W.2 contacted him over the mobile phone. The appellant informed him that he was

at the restaurant opposite the electricity office. P.W.2 and P.W.3 waited for the appellant, and thereafter, all three entered the office.

6.10. The prosecution version, supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, is that the appellant reiterated his demand for the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. P.W.2 handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant, who received them, counted them with both hands, and kept them in the drawer of his table on the right-hand side. P.W.2 then gave the pre-arranged signal.

6.11. Upon receiving the signal, P.W.10 and the other members of the trap team entered the office. P.W.2 and P.W.3 informed them of the events that had transpired. The post-trap proceedings were then conducted, and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the drawer.

6.12. The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, and P.W.10 to establish the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe amount. The evidence of P.W.5 is particularly relevant to the circumstances in which the de facto complainant's application was processed and the estimate was prepared.

6.13. The departmental records, including the Domestic Application Register, Demand Register, Service Connection Labour Register, and Attendance Register, marked as Exs.P6 to P9, together with the estimate marked as Ex.P11, were relied upon to establish the progress of the application and the appellant's involvement in the process.

6.14. The records indicate that the appellant had raised an objection to the second service connection on the ground that there was no physical segregation between the ground floor and the first floor and that an internal staircase connected the two portions. The de facto complainant, on the other hand, maintained that the internal staircase was merely an internal arrangement that could be permanently closed and that an external staircase provided separate access to the first floor. He further relied upon the separate municipal assessments in support of his request for two independent service connections.

6.15. The evidence further indicates that, notwithstanding the objection concerning physical segregation, the application was subsequently forwarded for processing, the estimate was prepared, and the estimated charges were collected. P.W.5 has spoken to the preparation of the estimate and the processing of the application, and his evidence finds corroboration in the relevant departmental records.

6.16. The appellant relies upon Exs.D4 and D5 to contend that the application was defective and that the second service connection could not be sanctioned without compliance with the prescribed requirements. However, these documents have to be considered alongside the other departmental records and the oral evidence concerning the actual processing of the application.

6.17. The fact that the application was processed and the estimated charges were collected does not, by itself, establish the commission of an offence. Nevertheless, the manner in which the application was dealt with, when considered together with the evidence concerning the alleged demand for illegal gratification, constitutes a relevant circumstance in assessing the prosecution case.

6.18. The appellant has also contended that the application was not withheld by him and that P.W.8, the licensed contractor, had retained it. Though P.W.8 did not fully support the prosecution, he confirmed the existence of the application, the preparation of the estimate, and the handing over of the application to P.W.5. P.W.5's evidence corroborates these aspects.

6.19. The appellant has further questioned the credibility of P.W.2 and P.W.3, contending that their evidence contains material contradictions regarding the appellant's presence in the office and the circumstances in which the money was handed over. The evidence of these witnesses must, therefore, be assessed in conjunction with the testimony of P.W.5, the recovery mahazar, and the other contemporaneous records.

6.20. With regard to the telephone records, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.11 and the documents marked as Exs.P13 and P16. The defence has challenged the evidentiary value of these records, particularly, on the ground that the ownership and actual use of the relevant telephone numbers have not been conclusively established and that the statutory requirements governing electronic evidence have not been satisfied.

6.21. The evidentiary value of the telephone records must be assessed in accordance with the applicable statutory requirements. At the same time, the prosecution case concerning demand and acceptance must be considered on the basis of the entire body of admissible evidence, including the direct testimony of the witnesses and the contemporaneous documentary evidence.

6.22. The appellant has also challenged the validity of the sanction order, Ex.P1, on the ground that the sanctioning authority did not independently apply its mind to the materials placed before it. The prosecution, on the other hand, relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to establish that the sanction was granted by the competent authority.

6.23. The validity of the sanction must be determined by examining the evidence of the sanctioning authority and the materials considered before the order was issued. The mere fact that the appellant disputes the sanction does not, by itself, render it invalid; equally, the grant of sanction cannot dispense with the prosecution's obligation to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

6.24. The appellant has also relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and the departmental documents marked on the defence side to demonstrate alleged irregularities in the processing of the application and the grant of the second service connection. These circumstances have to be considered in the context of the defence that the complaint was motivated and that the trap was staged.

6.25. The defence has further relied upon the non-examination of Ravichandran, the absence of the voice recording, and the failure to seize the alleged amount of Rs.5,000/- said to have been received on 02.06.2015. These omissions have been relied upon to contend that the prosecution has withheld material evidence.

6.26. The appellant has also questioned the phenolphthalein test and relied upon the evidence of P.W.6 concerning the colour of the hand-wash samples. The significance of this evidence must be considered along with the other evidence concerning the recovery and the circumstances in which the tainted currency notes were received and handled.

6.27. The prosecution, however, maintains that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 establishes the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount on 03.06.2015 and that the recovery proceedings corroborate their testimony. It further contends that the departmental records establish the appellant's involvement in processing the application.

6.28. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of recovery of tainted currency, by itself, is not sufficient to establish guilt where the essential foundational facts concerning demand and acceptance remain unproved. The Court must examine the evidence as a whole and determine whether the prosecution has established the relevant ingredients of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt.

6.29. In the present case, the Trial Court considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the departmental records, the recovery proceedings, and the defence documents. In particular, paragraphs 75 to 87 of the judgment contain its discussion of the evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution.

6.30. The appellant's primary contention is that the prosecution evidence is unreliable and that the Trial Court failed to give due consideration to the inconsistencies and omissions pointed out by the defence. The prosecution, on the other hand, submits that the evidence of the material witnesses is consistent on the essential aspects of the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe amount.

6.31. The question is whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court suffer from any material error in the appreciation of evidence or whether the prosecution has established the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The Court must also consider whether the statutory presumption, where applicable, can be invoked in the light of the foundational facts proved by the prosecution.

6.32. Upon examining the materials placed on record, the Trial Court's findings must be assessed in the light of the evidence concerning the demand, the acceptance of the tainted currency notes, the recovery proceedings, and the documentary evidence relating to the de facto complainant's application.

7. Conclusion:-

7.1. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, concluded that the prosecution had established the charges against the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

7.2. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court.

7.3. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.08.2018, passed by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2017 is confirmed. The bail bonds executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, is directed to issue warrant to secure the appellant, to forward him to prison to undergo remaining period of sentence. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant is set off under Section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) / 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No smn2 / VV2 To

1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore,

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Coimbatore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. smn2 / VV2 CRL A No.506 of 2018 16-10-2026