LexD. VELAYUTHAM versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, CHENNAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015J 6-s'.c.R. 361 - D. VELAYUTHAM v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, CHENNAI A (Criminal Appeal No.787 Of 2011) B MARCH 10, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- s. 13(1)(d) rw 13(2) - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 1208 - /llegal gratification - Trap C case - Multiple demanders in common bribe demand - Show cause notice against complainant for payment of excise duty - Said notice recalled - Thereafter, issuance of another notice by A 1-Superintendent, as its signatory - 0 Complainant met A 1 and his subordinate, A2 - Graft demand made by A 1 and A2 - Complainant informed the police - Trap laid against A 1 and A2 - Complainant went to the office cabin of A 1 but he was not present there - A2 told complainant that A 1 had left shortly and had instructed E A 1 to collect money on behalf of both of them - Complainant handed over the money to A2 - Transaction witnessed by independent witness -A2 caught by trap team -A2 returned currency notes first going into A 1 's office and then from his own desk - Arrest of accused - Conviction and sentence F of A 1 and A2 uls. 1208 /PC rw ss. 7 and 13(2) rw s. 13(1)(a) and (b) - High Court set aside the conviction of A 1 u/s. 13(1)(d) rw 13(2) while upheld conviction of A2 thereunder; and upheld the conviction of A 1 and A2 u/s 1208 /PC and s. 7 but reduced the sentence to imprisonment of one year G each - On appeal: held: Courts below rightly recognised the issuance of the notice as a graft-inducing ploy, designed to pester complainant into paying bribes to the accused for their recalling! rescinding the demand notice in return - In cases where there are multig/n demanders in a common or H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2015] 6 S.C.R. A conjoint bribe demand, and for whatsoever reason, only one receives the sum on their behalf, and is entrapped in consequence, depending on the strength of the remainder of evidence, constructive receipt by co-accused persons is open to establishment by the prosecution, in order that those B who intermediately obtain bribes be latched with equal culpability as their co-accused and entrapped receivers - If the receipt and handling of bribe money by A2 so convincingly and inexorably points towards his custodianship of parl of the same bribe amount on behalf of his superior C officer, A 1, then A 1 cannot rely on mere non-handling/ non- receipt of the bribe money, as his path to exculpation - It is clear that A 1 was present in the office that forenoon - A 1 's absence from the office at the time of the trap strengthens, 0 rather than weakens, the claim that his junior officer, A2, was received parl of the bribe amount as a custodian on his behalf - Furlher, the circumstances and testimonies of complainant and A2 substantiates the conviction of A 1 - Thus, conviction of A 1 sustainable - Evidence Act, 1872 - E s. 133 and Illustration (b) to s. 114. F G M.O.Shamsudhin v. State of Kera/a 1995 (2) SCR 900:(1995) 3 SCC 351; State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh AIR 1958 SC 500:1959 SCR 195 - referred to. 1995 (2) SCR 900 1959 SCR 195 Case Law Reference referred to. referred to. Para 6 Para 7 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2011 From the Judgment and Order dated 08.09.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. H 1214 of 2001. R :b~VEilAYUTHAMv. S'T'ATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 363 POLICE, SALEM TOWN, CHENNAI [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.] WITH Crl. A. No. 788 of 2011 R. Anand Padmanabhan, Shashi Bhushan Kumar, K. K. Mani, T. Archana for the Appellant. Rajiv Nanda, Prakriti Purnima, B. V. Balaram Das, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. These two Appeals before us assail the common Judgment dated 8.9.2010 of the Madras High Court which only partly allowed the Appeals before it, in favour of the Accused-Appellants. The Appellant A B c in Criminal Appeal No. 787/ 2011 is the First Accused; o Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 788/ 2011 is the Second Accused. The High Court partly allowed both Appeals, setting aside the conviction of Accused 1 under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whilst upholding Accused 2's conviction thereunder; and E affirming the conviction of both Accused 1 and Accused 2 but reducing their sentence under Section 120B, IPC, and Section 7 of the PC Act, to im
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.