SOUNDARAJAN versus STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 17-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
133
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 133
133
SOUNDARAJAN
v.
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE
ANTICORRUPTION DINDIGUL
(Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of 2022)
APRIL 17, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 : ss. 7, 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2)
– Illegal gratification – Appellant-Sub-Registrar demanded
gratification of Rs.500/- from the complainant-PW 2, for handing
over the registered sale deed – Complaint filed – Trap laid and in
presence of shadow witness PW-3, the appellant caught red-handed
while accepting the bribe – However, complainant did not support
the prosecution and was declared hostile – Trial court convicted
and sentenced the appellant for the offences punishable u/s 7 and
s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal,
held : To attract s. 7, the demand for gratification has to be proved
by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt – It is not a simple
demand for money, but it has to be a demand for gratification – On
facts, the complainant did not support the prosecution – In his
examination-in-chief, he did not say anything about the demand
made by the appellant – PW-3 did not say that the appellant made a
specific demand of gratification in his presence to PW-2 – No
circumstantial evidence of demand for gratification – Thus, the
offences punishable u/s. 7 and s. 13(2) r/w s. 13(1)(d) not established
– Furthermore, there was omission or error to frame charge, which
may lead to acquittal – Thus, the impugned judgment quashed and
set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.464.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 464 – Effect of omission
to frame or absence of, or error in, charge – Held: Under s. 464,
omission to frame a charge or any error in charge is never fatal
unless, in the opinion of the Court, a failure of justice has in fact
been occasioned thereby – Instant case is of omission to frame a
proper charge, and whatever charge has been framed is, per se
defective – However, by reason of the said omission, the accused
not prejudiced insofar as his right to defend is concerned.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
134
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC
online SC 1724 - relied on.
Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar (2011) 9 SCC 272; Union
of India v. Ex-GNR Ajeet Singh (2013) 4 SCC 186 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2011) 9 SCC 272
Referred to
Para 8
(2013) 4 SCC 186
Referred to
Para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1592 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLAMD No. 140 of 2012.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., B. Balaji, M. P. Parthiban, Duvvuri
Subrahmanya Bhanu, Ms. Shalini Mishra, Raja Rajeshwaran S., Advs.
for the Appellant.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Shobhit Dwivedi, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTS
1. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under
Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the PC Act’). The appellant was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
2,000/-. High Court, by the impugned judgment, has confirmed the
conviction and sentence of the appellant.
2. The appellant was holding the post of Sub-Registrar at
Kannivadi, Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant M.
Sundaramoorthy (PW-2), had purchased land measuring 16.05 cents.
Accordingly, on 12th July 2004, sale deed was presented before the
appellant who was the Sub-Registrar in the concerned office. The
complainant and his vendors were present. According to the case made
out by the complainant in his complaint, apart from getting the sale deed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
135
typed on a stamp paper of Rs.880/-, he paid a sum of Rs.190/- towards
the registration charges of the sale deed. A receipt for the said amount
was issued by the appellant. On 16th July 2004, when the complainant
visited the appellant’s office, he was informed to bring FMB Sketch
from the concerned Government office. According to the complainant,
on 31st July 2004, the said sketch was produced by him. After the sketch
was produced, the appellant informed him that he would have to make a
site visit. Accordingly, the complainant arranged for transport for the
appellant to enable him to make a site visit. After noticing trees on the
land, the appellant instructed the complainant to get a TOPO Sk

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