KOOTHA PERUMAL versus STATE TR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION

Citation: [2010] 14 S.C.R. 864 · Decided: 15-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 864 
KOOTHA PERUMAL 
v. 
STATE TR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI 
CORRUPTION 
. Criminal Appeal No.1923 of 2008 
DECEMBER 15, 2010 
[B.SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
ss. 7 and 13(2) rlw s. 13(1}{d) and 19- Demand of illegal 
gratification -
Trap laid - Accused caught red handed -
Conviction by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - Pleas that 
0 
the sanction order was not legally obtained and that there was 
no demand of bribe made by accused -
HELD: The 
sanctioning authority adverted to all necessary facts and duly 
recorded its satisfaction that the accused should be 
prosecuted - Both the courts below analysed the entire 
E 
evidence and clearly held that a demand was definitely made 
by the accused - No arbitrariness/inconsistencies discernible 
in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. 
The prosecution case was that' the appellant 
demanded Rs.50/- from the complainant for delivery of the 
F municipality tax certificate in respect of the house of his 
father. The complainant complained to the Inspector, 
Anti-corruption. A trap was laid. The appellant was caught 
with the phenolphalein powder treated currency notes. 
The chemical test was positive. The trial court convicted 
G the appellant of the offences charged. The High Court 
affirmed the conviction. 
In the instant appeal filed by the accused, it was 
contended for the appellant that the entire proceedings 
H 
864 
KOOTHA PERUMAL v. STATE TR. INSP. OF POLICE, VIG. 865 
& ANTI CORRUPTION 
were vitiated as previous sanction to prosecute him was 
A 
not legally obtained as required u/s 19 of the Act; and that 
there was no demand of bribe made by the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 
1. It canot be said that the sanction order in the 
instant case was not valid. A perusal of the sanction 
order would show that the sanctioning authority has 
adverted to all the necessary facts which have been 
actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon 
examination of the material facts, the sanctioning 
authority has certified that it is the authority competent 
to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically 
stated that the statements of the witnesses have been 
duly examined. Sanction order also states that other 
materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official 
documents such as the different mahazars were carefully 
examined. Upon examination of the statements of the 
witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning 
authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the 
appellant should be prosecuted. [para 14] [871-F-H; 872-
A-B] 
Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1958 SCR 762 =AIR 
1958 SC 124 - referred to. 
2. The trial court as well as the High Court have 
analyzed the entire evidence and clearly held that a 
demand was definitely made by the appellant for delivery 
B 
c 
D 
F. 
of the tax certificate. Both the courts have made a 
G 
reference to the evidence given by PWs.2 and 3 who 
' 
have categorically stated that the demand was made by 
the appellant. The entire trap has been meticulously 
orchestrated by the prosecution authority. No 
arbitrariness or inconsistencies are discernible in the 
H 
• 
866 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. [para 
16-17] [872-E-G] 
B 
Case Law Reference: 
1958 SCR 762 
referred to 
para 13 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1923 of 2008. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 07 .03.2007 of the High 
Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 
C 821 of 1999. 
D 
S. Mahendran for the Appellant. 
S. Thananjayan for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. This appeal is directed 
against the judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench 
dated 7th March, 2007 in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.821 of 
E 
1999 by which the High Court affirmed the conviction and 
sentence recorded by the leiirned Special Judge-cum-
Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, 
Pudukottai in Spl.C.C.No.1 of 1994. By the aforesaid judgment, 
the Special Judge convicted the appellant for offences 
F 
punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 
13(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the 
Act') and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous 
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.