The Supreme Court bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh dismissed the plea of a Village Administrative Officer accused of corruption and bribery after observing that both the High Court of Madras & the Magistrate Court on proper appreciation of evidence arrived at a logical conclusion that the demand for bribe and acceptance of bribe had been proved against the petitioner.
The SLP was filed by petitioner A. Solaimalai being aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by the High Court of Madras, wherein the High Court dismissed the criminal petition filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act in Special Case No.31 of 2014 after observing that the appeal lacks merits and point for consideration is answered in favor of the prosecution and against the accused.
Prosecution witness 2 Rangasamy had purchased agricultural nanja land measuring 2 acres 11 cents from one Alagarsamy Naidu on 27.01.2005. Rangasamy approached A. Solaimalai, the Village Administrative Officer of Kanavaipatty, the petitioner/accused, for measuring the purchased land and for transfer of patta and filed a petition for the same. Based on the petition, the Firka Surveyor had proposed to visit the village to measure the property that he had purchased.
On 19.03.2005, the Firka Surveyor came to the newly purchased agricultural field and measured the property. The petitioner was also present when the land was measured. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs 3000 for change of patta. Rangasamy was reluctant to pay him. He had approached the accused on 31.03.2005 regarding transfer of patta for which the petitioner before the Trial Court had insisted that without paying Rs 3000, he will not recommend patta transfer. Rangasamy requested petitioner to consider and reduce the amount. For which, the petitioner insisted a payment of at least Rs 2000 on 01.04.2005.
Thereafter, Rangasamy filed a complaint with Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police at Dindigul, based on which Raja Mohammed, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, registered the FIR under Ex.P-6 in Crime No.3 of 2005 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police conducted preliminary enquiry and having satisfied that prima facie complaint against the petitioner is found to be bona fide, they engaged witnesses to trap him in his office. Wherein petitioner was caught red-handed taking bribe via phenolphthalein test, which tested positive. After completing the investigation, the Investigation Officer had handed over the final report of the investigation to the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dindigul.
Also Read: Supreme Court reverses HC order acquitting man from murder case
After hearing the prosecution and the defence, the CJM, Dindigul, framed charges against the accused under Section 13(2) r/w. Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act & passed an order dated 10.12.2015 in Special Case No.31 of 2014 for Conviction and Sentence of Imprisonment.
The counsel on behalf of petitioner argued before the High Court that the case of P.W-2 was a false complaint to settle scores due to previous enmity against the accused. The accused serving as Village Administrative Officer has nothing to do with the patta transfer and therefore, the charges framed against the accused regarding demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe is not maintainable in the eyes of law.
Also Read: Supreme Court dismisses rape victim’s plea against bail granted to man accused of raping her
The High Court observed that the Ld. Trial Judge had correctly appreciated the evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act & demand and acceptance had been proved through P.W-3 Gopinathan (shadow witness) and confirmed the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge- cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Dindigul.
The Supreme Court observed that High Court has correctly appreciated the facts & circumstances & needs no interference by it, therefore dismissed the Petition.
Case Name- A. Solaimalai Vs State represented by the Inspector of Police.