R. SUNDARARAJAN versus STATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI, CHENNAI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

R. SUNDARARAJAN 
11. 
STATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI, CHENNAI 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 7 rlw Section 13-Demand 
of illegal gratification by public servant-Complaint-Trap-Accused caught 
A 
B 
red handed demanding and accepting illegal gratification-Trial after getting C 
sanction-Conviction by courts below-Sanction order questioned-On 
appeal, held: Accused rightly convicted-Sanction order granted after 
consideration of abundant material-However, Supreme Court cannot sit in 
appeal over the sanction order-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 
197. 
D 
Appellant-accused, after having come to know about approval for grant 
of permanent telephone connection to the subscriber, through the officials of 
his department (PWs 5 and 8), went to the house of allottee and demanded 
illegal gratification in order to get new permanent number allotted to her. 
Subscriber filed a complaint through P.W 2. On enquiry it came to light that 
the accused was in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification E 
from the subscribers. A trap was arranged and he was caught red handed 
demanding and accepting illegal gratification. After obtaining the sanction, 
chargesheet was filed. 
Trial Court found the accused guilty under Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1988 and punished him under Section 7 thereof. High Court confirmed F 
the conviction and sentence. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the sanction order was 
vitiated as the same was passed without any material. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. From the facts on record, it is evident that the appellant was 
caught red handed taking bribe and it appears that he was in the habit of 
demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the subscribers. There is 
499 
G 
H 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200f] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and High Court or 
with the punishment awarded to accused. 1503-CI 
2. It cannot be said that the sanction order was vitiated as there was no 
material on which it could have been passed. This Court cannot look into the 
adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and 
B this court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. The order 
granting sanction shows that all the available materials were placed before 
the sanctioning authority who considered the same at great detail. Only 
because some of the said materials could not be proved, the same by itself, 
would not vitiate the order of sanction. In fact in this case there was abundant 
C material before the sanctioning authority. 1503-D-FI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I 084 of 
2006. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 31.1.2006 of the High Court 
D of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1998. 
Dr. A.E. Chelliah, C. Basanjha Kumar Chelliah, K. Ramanujam, P. 
Karunakaran, A. Annadurai, K. Shiva Kumar, C. Saisullah, S.K. 
Bandyopadhyay, B.S. Bilwaria and Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant. 
E 
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Amit Anand Tiwari and P. Parmeswaran for the 
F 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KA TJU, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras 
High Court dated 31.01.2006 by which the appeal of the accused-appellant 
against his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention 
of Corruption Act by the Trial Court was upheld. 
G 
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
The facts in brief are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
accused') was employed as group "D" staff, A/C and Power, Harbour Telephone 
Exchange, Chennai-1 and as such, he was a public servant. It is alleged that 
the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 1500/- on 9.11.1992 from 
H Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the cousin ofTmt. Nagalakshmi at No. 38, Mosque 
R. SUNDARARAJAN r. STATE BY D.S.P., SPE, CBI, CHENNAI [MARKANDEY KA TJU,J] 50 J 
Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting permanent A 
telephone connection under OYT. The amount was demanded at 8.05 p.m. on 
9.11.1992 in the house of Tmt. Nagalakshmi and the appellant was caught red 
handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification. 
Jayakumar (P.W.5), who is the younger brother of the accused has been 
working as LDC in Madras Telephones Commercial Section (South),

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