LexSUBBUSINGH versus STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 383
. SUBBUSINGH
V.
STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
, Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2002
MAY 4, 2009
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR.
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
A
B
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -
ss. 7 rlw 12 and
13(2) rlw 13(1)(d) r/w 12 and 20-Demand and receipt of bribe
-
By police officer (A 1) through his friend (A2) -- Threatening C
the complainant to implicate him in criminal case -
Trap
arranged -
Phenolphthalein test positive -Acquittal of both
the accused by trial court -
High Court convicting A-1 while
upholding acquittal of A-2 -
On appeal, held.: Facts of the
case and conduct of A-1 establish his guilt -
The occurrence D
leading to demand of the bribe also established -
Once it is
proved that money was demanded as br{/Je and the same was
received by the accused, s.20 comes into play- Once there
is a presumption u/s 20, it is for the accused to establish that
the a.mountwas not received as bribe -
Conviction of A-·1 bY. E
High Court is correct.
,,, ·
,,..,,,. ,-..;·
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimin'afAp~al
No. 402 of 2002
F,
From the Judgement and Order dated 20.11.2001.of the . -
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appea.1 ·.
No. 316 of 1993
P.P. Rao, K.V. Visanathan, B. Raghunath, Abhispek
Kaushik, Vijay Kumar, with him for the Appellant.
G --
S. Thananjayan, for the Respondent.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
383
H
384
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2009] 7 S.C.R.
A
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of Madras High Court setting aside the judgment
of acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum
Special Judge, Erode, Tamil Nadu. Appellant faced trial
8 alongwith one Rajappan. The appellant faced trial for alleged
commission of offence punishable under Section 7 read with
12,13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'). The trial
court directed acquittal of both the accused persons. The High
C Court upheld the acquittal so far as the co-accused is concerned,
but set aside the judgment of acquittal and directed conviction
for the appellant for charged offences. The minimum sentence
of six months and fine with default stipulation for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of the Act and one year's rigorous
D imprisonment with fine with default stipulation for the offence
under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the Act were
awarded.
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
E
Subbusingh (Al), the appellant was working as Sub
Inspector of Police at Sathiyamangalain Police Station.
Rajappan (A2), is the friend of Al. There was a land dispute
between Renga Naicker (P. W.4) and Thippa Naicker (P.W.21 ).
-r ...,
· Both of them quarreled with each other on 6.7.1991. Nagarajan
F (P.W.5), relative of P.W.4 came to the Sathiyamangalam Police
Station and complained to Al Sub Inspector of Police orally
against P.W.21. Al directed the Police constables P.W.11 and
P.W.12 to go the spot to bring P.W.21. Accordingly, they went to
the scene of occurrence and found that P.W.21 was lying down
G with injuries. The Constables took the injured and others to the
Police Station.
In the meantime, Selvan (P.W.2), brother-in-law of P.W.21
followed them to the Police Station. Since the injured P.W.21
was not taken to the hospital, P.W.2 requested A 1 to send him
H to hospital. As, permitted by Al, the injured was taken in an Auto
SUBBUSINGHV. STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
385
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
--<t
to a private hospital run by Dr. Thangavel (P.W. 10). After taking
A
injection from the hospital, PW 21 and others came back to
Police Station. P. W.2 was asked to come back in the evening.
Accordingly, P.W.2 went to ttie Police Station at 5.00 P. M.
At that time, the Police obtained Muchalika from both the sides
B
stating that they would settle the matter by approaching the Civil
Court. Then, Al directed P.W.21 and others to wait outside the
~y
Police Station and act as per the instructions of one A2 who is
the friend of A 1.
_.
Within a few minutes, A2 came and informed P.W.2 that Al c
had asked him to get Rs.500/- from them. Natarajan (P.W.22),
son of P. W:21 told that he was having only Rs.1001-. A2 after
getting instruction from Al asked them to give Rs.100/-. P.W.22
told A2 that Rs.100/- was required to buy medicine. Then,Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.