CRL A(MD)/3/2019 of MR. P. BALUCHAMY Vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF on 10 November 2026

JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai District in Spl.C.C.No.8 of 2014. By judgment dated 12.12.2018, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 466, 467, 471 and 201 of IPC and under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, convicted and sentenced him as follows:

- to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months simple imprisonment under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ; and

- to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months simple imprisonment each for the offence under Sections 409, 466, 467, 471 and 201 IPC. The above said sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i) The appellant was the President of the Nenjathur Village Panchayat, Sivagangai district. The appellant as the panchayat president sold the tiles, windows, doors of a demolished old school building under his control, in a public auction on 13.01.1999 to one Kanan [PW2] / defacto complainant for Rs.10,000/- and he collected Rs.5,000/- as part of the sale price from PW2 on the same day. However he did not issue any receipt for the same and also did not deposit the said amount to the panchayat accounts. The appellant did not permit him to take all the auctioned materials and therefore, PW2 had left some materials worth about Rs.1,500/-. While so PW2 had lodged a complaint dated 25.10.2000 [Ex.P2] before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Sivagangai Unit alleging that he had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the date of auction and paid the balance Rs.5,000/- few days later to the appellant towards the auction sale price. However, the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to issue receipt for the payment of auction sale price of Rs.10,000/- and to permit him to take the remaining materials. PW2 was not inclined to pay the illegal gratification and therefore he lodged the complaint to take action as against the appellant.

(ii) On receipt of the complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Sivagangai [Trap Laying Officer / TLO] registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2000 as against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the same day. He also informed his higher officials about this complaint.

(iii) The TLO / PW31 obtained permission for laying a trap and requested for Group B or C officials from the office of the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department and Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Sivagangai for assistance in the trap. Accordingly, one Thirunavukkarasu [PW20], Assistant, Office of the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department and one Nagalingam, Superintendent, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Sivagangai were present before him and the TLO gave a copy of the FIR [ExP57] for knowing about the complaint and they also enquired the complainant about the complaint. The TLO obtained Rs.5,000/- [Rs.500 X 10] from the complainant, which was meant for giving to the appellant and the serial number of the currencies were noted down in the entrustment mahazar [ExP3] and they conducted a pre-trap demonstration in the presence of the complainant [PW2], official witness [PW20] and other

Police parties. The said Rs.5,000/- coated with phenolphthalein powder was handed over to PW2 for giving to the appellant. The TLO instructed PW2 to meet the appellant at his office and if the appellant demands money, then only he should give the money to the appellant.

(iv) The TLO asked PW2 to act according to the instructions of the appellant. Accordingly, PW2 along with the official Nagalingam went to the office of the appellant around 2.15pm on 25.10.2000 to the Block Development Office, where PW2 met the appellant and told him that he had brought the money as demanded by him and PW2 handed over the phenolphthalein coated money of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant. The appellant received the same.

(v) After receipt of the bribe amount by the appellant, PW2 came out of the office and had shown the pre-arranged signal to the TLO, who along with his team was waiting outside the BDO office. On noticing the signal, the police party went inside the BDO office. The TLO introduced himself and the official witness to the appellant. Each hand of the appellant was subjected to the phenolphthalein test and the solution turned into pink in colour and the said solutions were recovered in separate bottles [MOs.1 & 2] and the same was attested by the appellant, witnesses and the TLO.

(vi) On enquiry by the TLO, the appellant admitted the receipt of Rs.5,000/- [MO.5] from PW2, which was kept inside the table of one Junior Assistant. The said money was recovered and the same tallied with the entrustment mahazar [ExP3]. Further the appellant produced some receipt books and the acknowledgment for the receipt issued by PW2, which is marked as Ex.P47. Receipt No.108075, dated 25.10.2000 showing the name of PW2 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- is marked as Ex.P.28. Then the TLO collected Ex.P.58 a letter addressed by PW2 to the District Collector. He also prepared recovery mahazar [ExP39] and rough sketch [ExP59] and the same was attested by the appellant, TLO and the witnesses. He conducted a search in the house of the appellant and prepared a mahazar [ExP.40] and conducted a search in the office of the appellant and prepared a mahazar [Ex.P41]. He collected the Exs.P.42,43,44 and 45 from the office of the appellant. He prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P.46]. Subsequently, the appellant was taken to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption office, was arrested and released on bail by the TLO.

(vii) The TLO placed all the materials he collected, before the Investigating Officer / PW32. He conducted preliminary investigation. PW33 is the subsequent investigating officer and he has recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and conducted part of the investigation. PW34 is another investigating officer and after completion of the investigation, PW34 filed a final report against the appellant for the offence under Sections 471 and 201 IPC r/w 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, before the Special Court for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sivagangai and the same was taken on file in SplCC.No.8 of 2014.

3. During trial On the side of the prosecution 34 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW34, 80 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.80 and 5 material objects were produced as MO.1 to MO.5.

4. The available prosecution evidence are as follows:

(i) PW1 is the then District Collector, Sivagangai and he has accorded sanction [ExP1] for prosecuting the appellant.

(ii) PW2 is the defacto complainant and he speaks about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant for allowing him to take the remaining goods, which were taken on public auction and lodging of complaint [ExP2] before the Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Madurai.

(iii) PW7 is the wife of PW2 and she speaks about the demand made by the appellant to his husband.

(iv) PW10 is the then Assistant Director (Panchayats), Sivagangai and he speaks about the enquiry conducted by him on 26.10.2000 about the complaint of the defacto complainant.

(iv) PW20, the Assistant from the Office of the Divisional Engineer, Highways Department, in whose presence the appellant admitted the receipt of the bribe money and the phenolphthalein test was conducted on the hands and of the appellant.

(v) PW26 is the Scientific Assistant at Forensic Science Department, Chennai and he speaks about the presence of the phenolphthalein in MOs.1 to 5 and issuance of chemical analysis report [ExP52].

(vi) PW31 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Sivagangai unit [TLO] and he speaks about the complaint lodged by PW2, registration of FIR, summoning of official witness, preparation of entrustment mahazar and the trap executed by him and the preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch and the arrest of the appellant in the presence of the official witness and police party.

(vii) PW32 is the investigation officer, who conducted preliminary enquiry in this case and he has recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and collected some exhibits.

(viii) PW33 is the subsequent investigating officer, who completed the investigation, prepared the final report and sent the final report to the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department.

(ix) PW34 is the another investigating officer, who has filed the final report before the court.

5. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances were put before the appellant and the appellant denied the same as false. The appellant has neither examined anyone nor marked any document on his side.

6. The trial Court, after completion of the trial and after hearing the arguments on either side, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated supra. As against the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following points:

(i) The appellant Panchayat President is not a public servant and his services as Panchayat President is rendered as per Section 119(2) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act.

(ii) PW2 has participated in the auction conducted by the panchayat with regard to the materials collected from the demolished old school building and he won the auction for auction sale of price of Rs.10,000/- on 13.01.1999. He claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the same day and paid the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- within few days. However, there is no material placed for the payment of this 2nd sum of Rs.5,000/- by PW2.

(iii) The complaint is a motivated one at the instance of PW4, who contested twice as against this appellant in the panchayat election and lost the election. The wife of the complainant/ PW7 was a ward member of the panchayat. Those, who could not defeat the appellant in the election, has foisted this false complaint as against this appellant, as if this appellant had demanded money in connection with the auction.

(iv) A sum of Rs.5,000/- said to have been paid by the complainant on 25.10.2000 to the appellant, is the balance auction sale price amount due from the complainant to the panchayat. The appellant had issued receipt for the same. This amount was also credited in the account of the panchayat. Therefore, this amount cannot be termed as bribe or illegal gratification. The complainant, who had succeeded in the auction, had paid the balance auction sale price on 25.10.2000. However, he approached, as if there was demand by the appellant for the same.

(v) PW32, PW33 and PW34 are the investigating officers in this case and they have in categorical terms stated that there was no evidence for bribe and this amount paid by the defacto complainant on 25.10.2000 is the balance amount due from him towards the auction sale price.

(vi) The defacto complainant is an encroacher of a water body situated within the pachayat of the appellant. The appellant being the panchayat president, had taken up this cause of encroachment, submitted several representations repeatedly to the officials concerned for removal of the same.

(vii) The report of the Tahsildar, Ilayankudi dated 05.10.2000 sent to the District Collector, Sivagangai in Oo.Mu.No.A2/8716/2000 reveals that based on the complaint of this appellant / the Panchayat President of Nenjathur Village, the encroachments made by PW2 and PW12 were removed by the Revenue Officials. Therefore, this complaint of the alleged demand, dated 25.10.2000, is lodged within 20 days from the removal of encroachment made by the defacto complainant, with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. This amount paid by the defacto complainant on 25.10.2000 is the balance auction sale price, due from him to the panchayat and it is not bribe money as alleged by the prosecution.

(viii) PW2 due to the election motive also has targeted this appellant. He has lodged two complaints under the SC/ST (POA) Act, as against this appellant and others in Crime No.34 of 1999 on the file of the PCR Unit, Sivagangai, prior to the trap that this appellant along with three others has abused the defacto complainant / PW2 on 11.12.1999. This case ended in acquittal. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred another such complaint lodged by PW2 as against this appellant under the provisions of the SC/AT (POA) Act by referring to the evidence of the investigating officer/PW32. However, there is no material to that effect.

(ix) As per evidence of the then Assistant Director (Panchayats), PW10, based the complaint of the defacto complainant he conducted an enquiry on 16.10.2000, wherein the defacto complainant agreed to pay the balance auction sale price within a period of one week and to get the receipt. He also enquired the President Vellaichamy and he deposed that the defacto complainant had not paid the balance auction sale price of Rs.5,000/- and therefore, the receipt was not given.\

(x) However, the complaint was lodged after one week on 25.10.2000 and based on the same, the trap was organised on 25.10.2000. Therefore, this Rs.5,000/- paid by the defacto complainant on 25.10.2000, projected as bribe by him, is the amount due to the panchayat from PW2. The trial court without appreciating the evidence of PW10 and the other materials has wrongly come to the conclusion that this appellant has committed the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(xi) PW2 had referred to different dates in his evidence with regard to source for this 2nd payment of Rs.5,000/-. PW2 claimed that he pledged jewels through PW8 Iyyakannu. However, according to PW8, the jewels were pledged on 27.09.1999 for a sum of Rs.2,000/-, another set of jewels were pledged on 18.11.1999 for a sum of Rs.5,000/-, yet another pledge on 18.11.1999 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and on 03.04.2000 for a sum of Rs.2,000/- etc., these dates are very remote to the auction date on 31.01.1999.

(xii) PW7 is the wife of PW2 and she was a ward member of the said panchayat. As per her evidence her relative's jewels were pledged by them to pay the auction sale price, but in her cross examination, she admitted that she was unaware of the exact details as to when, where and how much sovereigns of gold were pledged. She did not state or produce the documents pertaining to the alleged pledge. She did not state when the defacto complainant sought receipt for the payment of auction sale price but she was aware it is the duty of clerk to issue the receipt. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submits that the defacto complainant having succeeded in the auction on 13.01.1999, paid a part on the same day, however, has not paid the balance amount. On 25.10.2000, he paid the balance amount and it was also credited into the account of the panchayat and receipt was also given. Therefore, there is no loss to the panchayat or illegal gratification was accepted by the appellant. It is to be noted that the petitioner being the president had taken initiatives for removal of the encroachments made by the defacto complainant and others in a water body and also due to the election motive, the defacto complainant had already lodged the complaints under the SC/ST (POA) Act, and finally foisted this complaint to wreak vengeance as against the appellant. However, the trial court has not considered the evidence and the documents with regard to the same and convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal be allowed the appellant be acquitted of the charges.

8. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has made his submissions as under:

(i) The appellant the President of the panchayat is a public servant. It is also corroborated by the evidence of PW10 Murugan, then Block Development Officer of Ilayangudi Panchayat Union, who had deposed in his evidence that the appellant is a public servant.

(ii) The appellant being the public servant, having dominion over the said old school building at Nenjathur, had sold the tiles, windows, doors, etc.., of the building in a public auction on 13.01.1999 to one Kanan for a sum of Rs 10,000/-, collected a sum of Rs.5,000/- from him as a part of the auction sale price on the same day and without issuing any receipt and without bringing it into the accounts of the panchayat till 25.10.2000, the appellant dishonestly misappropriated the said amount for his own use and thereby the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 409 IPC.

(iii) The defacto complainant Kanan preferred a complaint to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Sivagangai Unit alleging that he paid Rs.5,000/- on the date of auction on 13.01.1999 itself and the balance of Rs.5,000/-within a few days thereafter to the appellant, towards the auction sale amount. He had taken the auctioned materials except the tiles worth about Rs.1,500/- and the appellant was demanding Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification to issue receipt for the said amount of Rs.10,000/- and to permit him to get the remaining materials.

(iv) On 25.10.2000, around 3.00 pm during the trap executed by the TLO, the appellant accepted the alleged illegal gratification in connection with the auction sale, obtained the phenolphthalein coated money of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant at the Panchayat Union Office at Ilayangudi and issued a false receipt immediately, as if he had received the entire auction sale price of Rs.10,000/- only on 25.10.2000 with an intention to cause the disappearance of the evidence of the offence committed by him and to screen himself from legal punishment. Further with the same intention, the appellant had interpolated the entries in the Resolution Book of Nenjathur Panchayat as if a resolution was passed to auction the said old building materials on

13.01.2000, interpolated the year of auction in the paper containing the auction details as 2000 and gave a false report in writing on 24.12.1999 to the B.DO, Ilayangudi that the above said old materials were not at all auctioned. The tainted money of Rs.5000/- was seized by the Vigilance Police during the trap on 25.10.2000 from the appellant and then appellant remitted Rs.5000/- through the Panchayat Board Clerk into the Panchayat Board account in Sivagangai District Central Co-Operative Bank at Ilayangudi on 27.10.2000. The appellant used the above mentioned forged documents as genuine so as to make it to appear that the auction sale took place only on 13.01.2000 and to show that the full auction sale amount of Rs.10,000/ was collected on 25.10.2000 and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s.466, 467, 471 and 201 IPC.

(v) The appellant by misusing his official position as a Public servant dishonestly and fraudulently sold the above mentioned old building materials, under his control, in a public auction to the defacto complainant on 13.01.1999 at Nenjathur without any authority for the same and without the knowledge of the Panchayat Union authorities. He had also misappropriated a part of the sale proceeds of Rs.5000/- collected from the defacto complainant on the date of auction and

remitted the said amount into the Panchayat account only on 27.10.2000 and thereby the appellant had also committed an offence punishable u/s.13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Government Advocate therefore submits that the trial court considered all the prosecution evidence and the documents and rightly convicted the appellant and hence prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

9. This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials placed on record.

10. The appellant, President of a Panchayat had been prosecuted that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant as illegal gratification in connection with an auction conducted by the panchayat. The appellant an elected panchayat president of Nenjathur Village, received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from PW2 on 25.10.2000 in the presence of the PW.20 / shadow witness. This sum of Rs.5,000/- is a phenolphthalein coated money arranged for the trap by the Vigilance Department based on the complaint of the defacto complainant dated 25.10.2000. The appellant claims that this sum of Rs.5,000/- is the balance amount towards auction sale price due from PW2 to the panchayat and PW2 in order to avoid to pay the balance amount has foisted this false complaint due to the previous motive.

11. The learned senior counsel for the appellant from the materials placed on record demonstrated that there was an election dispute between the defacto complainant and the appellant and the action taken by the appellant as the panchayat president, as against the defacto complainant, who had encroached a water body and due to this motive the defacto complainant had foisted this false complaint.

12. Perusal of Ex.P72 discloses that there were some complaints by the appellant and the villagers repeatedly as against the encroachments made by the defacto complainant and others, to the District Collector, Tahsildar and other authorities. The encroachments made in a water body by PW2, PW12 and 5 others were removed by the Tahsildar, Ilayankudi on 05.10.2000 based on the complaint of this appellant dated 17.09.1999 and the Tahsildar, Ilayankudi reported the same to the District Collector, Sivagangai by his proceedings in Omu.No.A2/8716/2000, dated 05.10.2000.

13. The trap was arranged on 25.10.2000 based on the complaint of PW2 dated 25.10.2000. The action as against the encroachment was initiated on 17.09.1999 and culminated in removal of the encroachment on 05.10.2000. In the interregnum period, it appears that the complaint had been lodged by PW2 as against this appellant and 3 others before the Sivagangai PCR Unit in Crime No.34 of 1999 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989. This complaint was lodged on 11.12.1999, which is after the appellant had initiated action for removal of encroachment in the water body by lodging complaint to the officials concerned. Further Ex.P7 a complaint was also lodged as against this appellant by the defacto complainant and others. He has also lodged a complaint dated 25.09.2000 to the District Collector as against the appellant. However perusal of these complaints do not reveal that there was any demand of money by the appellant, but it was alleged that the receipt for Rs.10,000/- paid by the defacto complainant, was not issued. The defacto complainant claims that he complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 13.01.1999 and he had paid the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- within few days. However, the evidence of PW.10 / the then Assistant Director (Panchayats) shows that he conducted an enquiry on 16.10.2000 and before him the defacto complainant had admitted that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- within period of one week and would collect the receipt and also the president Vellaichamy had stated that since the defacto complainant had not paid the balance amount, the receipt was not issued. Ex.P16 the office note in Na.Ka.No.A5/6331/2000 also corroborates the same.

14. Admittedly there was a public auction of the materials of a demolished school building. The defacto complainant had participated in the auction and bid highest auction sale price of Rs.10,000/- on 13.01.1999. He is said to have paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 25.10.2000 on the date of trap. The defacto complainant PW2 is the husband of PW7, who is a ward member of the panchayat.

15. The auction was conducted on 31.01.1999. The defacto complainant claimed that though he had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the date of auction itself, he was not allowed to take all the materials. However, there is no proof for the payment of this money. The investigation was also initially conducted by PW32 and thereafter, by PW33 and PW.34. These investigating officers in their evidence have stated that this amount of Rs.5,000/- paid by PW2 on 25.10.2000 is the amount due from PW2 towards the auction sale price to the panchayat and it is not illegal gratification demanded by the appellant.

16. The mistake committed by the panchayat president is that he did not issue any receipt for Rs.5,000/- which is said to be collected by him from PW2 on the date of auction on 13.01.1999. As rightly pointed by the learned senior counsel, it is the responsibility of the panchayat secretary, to prepare receipt but not the panchayat president.

17. In this case the panchayat secretary was shown in the list of witnesses. However, he was not examined during the trial. The non examination of the panchayat secretary would certainly affect the case of the prosecution with regard to the auction, the payment of Rs.5,000/- said to be made by PW2 towards auction sale price on 13.01.1999 and the entries made in the registers.

18. There were entries in the panchayat resolution book on 11.02.2000 as resolution No.58 that the auction can be approved only after full payment made by PW2 and this resolution had been signed by the president and other members of the panchayat. This resolution, according to the prosecution, had been inserted by the panchayat president and thereby he committed the offence under Sections 466, 467 and 471 IPC. However, the prosecution has not proved the same by examining other signatories to that resolution and other members of the panchayat that this resolution No.58 had been interpolated by the appellant.

19. According to the investigation officers, the resolution book has to be maintained by the panchayat secretary. However surprisingly in this case the panchayat secretary, cited in the list of witnesses, was not examined by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, the receipt of Rs.5,000/- on the date of auction had been admitted by the appellant. However, the same has been remitted along with the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the panchayat funds vide Ex.P28 only on 25.10.2000. Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate this appellant panchayat president had retained a sum of Rs.5,000/- paid by PW2 on the date of auction till 25.10.2000, which amounts to criminal misappropriation and the offence under Sections 406 and 409 IPC is made out.

20. The issuance of receipts and remittance of the amount is the duty of the panchayat secretary. No doubt this appellant is also having certain responsibilities. However, the available materials would not attract the offence under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC. The criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 IPC and the same is extracted hereunder: “405. Criminal breach of trust.— Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

21. The materials which were recovered from the demolished old school building were auctioned on 13.01.1999. According to PW10, the complainant claimed that this appellant has not issued any receipt for the payment of Rs.5,000/- made by him on 13.01.1999 and insisted for the balance Rs.5,000/-. PW10 in fact suggested PW2 to pay the balance amount and PW2 has agreed to pay this amount of Rs.5,000/- within a week. Therefore, from the evidence of PW10, it appears that this sum of Rs.5,000/- is the balance amount due from the PW2 to the panchayat. Further according to P.W.18 / the then Assistant of Ilayankudi Panchayat Union, on 24.10.2000 there was a dispute between the appellant and the defacto complainant in his office before the cabin of the Block Development Officer and on enquiry, it was found the defacto complainant demanded receipt for Rs.10,000/- but he admitted that he had to pay a balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and he also agreed to pay it on the next day. This amount was paid after lodging of the complaint that the appellant had demanded additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for taking away the goods. Form the complaint and the evidence of PW2, it appears that the appellant had not permitted PW2 to take the entire goods, pursuant to the auction, for want of payment of balance amount.

22. Considering that this amount of Rs.5,000/- paid by the defacto complainant on 25.10.2000 is the part amount due to the panchayat from PW2. The appellant did not issue any receipt for the amount said to have been paid on 13.01.1999 and at the same time he did not allow the complainant to take the goods. On receipt of this Rs.5,000/- on 25.10.2000 the appellant has issued the receipt and has also credited the same to the panchayat account. Moreover, the panchayat secretary neither had been examined as witness nor added as an accused, who is supposed to issue receipts for any payment to the panchayat.

23. The date of auction, the date of the complaints lodged by the appellant as against the encroachments made by the defacto complainant and other, the date of the complaints lodged by the defacto complainant as against the appellant under the SC/ST(POA) Act and this complaint, establish a clear motive between the defacto complainant and the appellant.

24. With the available materials and in view of the above discussion, it is not safe to convict the appellant for the charges levelled as against him.

25. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment dated 12.12.218 passed in SplCC.No.8 of 2014 by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai District is hereby set aside. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant.

10-11-2026 DSK Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC :Yes/ No

To

1. The Special Judge, The Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai District.

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

3. The Additional Pubic Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4. The Record Keeper (2 Copies), Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras, Madurai.

B.PUGALENDHI,J. DSK CRL A(MD)No.3 of 2019 10.11.2026