N. VIJAYAKUMAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 03-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
63
   [2021] 2 S.C.R. 63
63
N. VIJAYAKUMAR
 v.
 STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 100-101 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 03, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d)
– Appellant-accused was Sanitary Inspector in 8th Ward of Madurai
Municipal Corporation – Case of prosecution that he demanded
Rs.500/- and a cell phone as illegal gratification from PW-2, to
send his report for extension of work, working as Supervisor in an
Organisation which was given sanitation work on contract basis in
the aforesaid ward – Trial court acquitted the appellant – Acquittal
reversed by High Court – On appeal, held: There are material
contradictions in the deposition of key witnesses – Demand for and
acceptance of bribe amount and cell phone by the appellant not
proved beyond reasonable doubt – Mere recovery of tainted money,
divorced from the circumstances under which such money and article
is found is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive
evidence in the case is not reliable – Acquittal recorded by the trial
court is a possible view – Judgment of the High Court set aside –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1.1 PW-2 is the key witness. The sanctioning
authority, who sanctioned to prosecute the appellant was
examined as PW-1 and the complainant was examined as PW-2.
It is evident from the deposition of PW-2, 3, 5 and 11 that they
reached the office of the accused at 05:30 p.m. on 10.10.2003,
and at that point of time the accused was not found in the seat
and they have waited for him, and appellant has come to the office
at 05:45 p.m. on his bike and took his seat. PW-2, in his deposition
has stated that when he met the appellant-accused along with
other witnesses, appellant has made a demand for Rs.500/- and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
64
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
cell phone. He has stated that in view of such demand he has
handed over the powder coated currency notes and cell phone
which were received by the accused and kept in the left side
drawer of the table. The official witness is examined as PW-3. He
also stated in his deposition, that when they reached the office of
the accused, accused was not in the seat. Therefore, they have
waited and accused arrived in the office at 05:45 p.m. PW-2 in his
deposition has clearly stated that he met the accused earlier
several times and again when he met on 09.10.2003 along with
PW-5, the appellant-accused has demanded for Rs.500/- and a
cell phone as illegal gratification. In the cross-examination PW-
2, has admitted that he never saw the accused earlier and the
appellant has made a demand when he met firstly on 09.10.2003.
It is also clearly deposed by PW-2 in the cross-examination that
he was ill treated by the accused several times earlier as he
belonged to scheduled caste community. From his deposition it
is clear that there were ill feelings between the appellant and the
PW-2. It is also clear from the evidence, after handing over
currency and cell phone, he along with other witnesses who have
accompanied him they came out of the office and signalled to the
inspector. PW-2 also admitted in the cross-examination that he
was not having any details regarding the purchase of M.O.2 cell
phone. It is also clear from the evidence that though the trap was
at about 05:45 p.m., phenolphthalein test was conducted only at
07:00 p.m. There is absolutely no evidence to show that why
such inordinate delay occurred from 05:45 p.m. to 07:00 p.m.
The office of the Town Assistant Health Officer and other officials
of the department is also near to the office of the appellant. PW-
3 in clear terms, has deposed that only on demand of anti-
corruption officials, the accused had taken and produced the
money and cell phone, which was in the drawer of the table. The
Circle Health Inspector of Madurai Corporation, who was
examined as PW-4 has deposed in the cross-examination that he
had no idea what was going on before he reached the office and
he has also deposed that he was not aware about Rs.500/- and
cell phone, by whom and when it was kept. He, too has deposed
in the cross-examination that only on the direction of the inspector
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
65
the appellant-accused has taken out the money and the cell phone.
The deposition of PW-5 is also in similar lines. Another key
witness on behalf of the prosecution is PW-11, i.e., the Deputy
Superintendent of Pol

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