R.RAMANI vs STATE BY

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
Reserved on : 08.09.2026
Pronounced on :16.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.A.No.210 of 2019
R.Ramani ... Appellant / Accused

Vs.
State by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
SIC-I, Chennai – 600 028
Crime No.1/AC/2008 ... Respondent / Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure r/w. Section 27 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, praying to set aside the conviction and sentence passed
against the Appellant / Accused on 27.03.2019 in Spl.Case No.4/2009
by the learned Special Judge-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.

For Appellant : Mr.Abdul Basith

For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar
Government Advocate (crl.side)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
JUDGMENT

The Appellant, sole accused in Spl.Case No.4 of 2009, was
convicted by Judgment, dated 23.07.2019, by the learned Special
Judge-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu. She was sentenced to
undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.4,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six
months, for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (hereinafter “the PC Act”). She was further convicted and
sentenced to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.4000/-, in default to undergo two months Simple
Imprisonment, for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
PC Act, the sentences being ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved
by the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has
been preferred by the appellant.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
i. The Appellant, R.Ramani, worked as Sub Registrar, Sub
Registrar Office, Tambaram (Chennai South Registration District),
Kanchipuram District, from 09.08.2007 onwards and was a public
servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
ii. P.W.3 / G.Shanmugaraj purchased a house site from 'Sai
Builders'. P.W.2 / M.Sri Ram, Manager of Sai Builders, acting on
behalf of its Managing Director, P.W.4 / Mani Shankar. P.W.2
approached the appellant for registration of the sale deed. It is
alleged that the appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- as gratification other
than legal remuneration for registering the document, and directed
that the amount be paid at his office at Tambaram at 17.00 hours on
16.06.2008, the day on which the document was to be registered.
Unwilling to pay, P.W.2, lodged a written complaint at 11.45 hours on
16.06.2008 before P.W.12 / Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption, SIC-I, Chennai and P.W.13 is the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, on which Crime No.1/AC/2008 registered under Section 7
of the PC Act. A pre-trap demonstration of the Phenolphthalein Test
was conducted and the proceedings were recorded.
iii. A trap laid. Two currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination,
produced by the complainant, were smeared with phenolphthalein
powder and entrusted to him under mahazar, and an official witness
sent along with him to watch the proceedings. At about 17.00 hours,
in the Sub Registrar Office, Tambaram, the complainant met the
appellant and handed over the money. According to the prosecution,
the appellant reiterated his earlier demand and accepted the amount
in the presence of the official witness. On the pre-arranged signal,
the trap party entered the room. The phenolphthalein test on the
fingers of both hands of the appellant is stated to have been positive
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
and the tainted notes recovered from the drawer of his office table
under seizure mahazar, after their numbers were tallied with those
recorded in the mahazar. The appellant then arrested.
3. On completion of investigation, and after sanction for
prosecution accorded by the Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai, under Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act, by proceedings dated
16.04.2009 (Ex.P1), final report filed and taken on file as Spl.Case
No.4 of 2009. Charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)
of the PC Act framed.
4. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.13
were examined and Ex.P.1 to P16 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked. The
defence examined DW1 and D.W.2 and marked documents, including
Ex.B1 / Sale Deed No.4956 of 2008 and Ex.B2 / letter sent under RTI
Act and its enclosures. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
the appellant denied the incriminating circumstances. On the above
evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant, as
stated above.

5. Mr.Abdul Basith, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the demand, the foundational fact, has not been
proved. PW2, the complainant, nowhere mention any amount in his
deposition on the alleged demand or on the handing over of the
money. The learned Special Judge supplied the deficiency by reading
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
the words “2000 rupees” into the testimony of PW2, which do not
occur in the deposition. The testimony of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and
PW12 is contradictory on the aspect of acceptance. While PW3 and
PW2 pleaded ignorance of the registration of Document No.4957 of
2008, PW6, PW12 and PW13 admitted it, which lends credence to
the explanation of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
defence of motive and of a trap was not considered at all. PW4, the
vendor, had a grudge on account of the stamp duty and fees he had to
pay, and his subsequent sale of the same property to a third party
shows that the complaint, lodged through his manager, was
engineered to fix the appellant.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that there were
serious violations of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Manual. Rule
47 was breached as the statement of the accused was not recorded
immediately after arrest, depriving of an opportunity to explain, and
Rule 53 was breached as PW13, the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
who organised and piloted the trap, also investigated the case. All
the officials present at the time of the alleged demand and
acceptance were not examined. The trial court does not assign any
reasons for rejecting the pleas of the defence or the decisions relied
upon by the appellant, and is therefore vitiated.
7. Mr.S.Udayakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side),
appearing for the respondent, supported the judgment of the trial
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
Court. He submitted that the complainant, supported by the official
witness, spoken to the demand and acceptance. The tainted money
was recovered from the drawer of the appellant and the
phenolphthalein test was positive. Once acceptance was proved, the
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arose and was not
rebutted. The defence was an afterthought and that the alleged
lapses in following the Vigilance Manual are, at best, irregularities
which do not vitiate the trial. He prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
8. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record,
including the judgment of the trial Court, the depositions of the
witnesses and the documents marked during trial.

9. The points that arise for consideration are: (i) whether the
prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, a demand of
illegal gratification by the appellant; (ii) whether the voluntary
acceptance of the tainted money by the appellant, as gratification,
has been proved so as to attract the presumption under Section 20 of
the PC Act; (iii) whether the explanation of the appellant is probable
and has created a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution;
and (iv) whether the conviction and sentence are liable to be set
aside.

10. This being the statutory appeal against a conviction, this
Court is duty-bound to re-appreciate the entire evidence and to arrive
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
at its own conclusions on facts and law. The presumption of
innocence of the accused is reinforced, and not weakened, by the
judgment of conviction only to the extent that the findings are
supported by legal evidence. Where a finding of guilt is founded on a
misreading of the evidence or on the omission to consider a material
plea of the defence, the appellate Court is bound to interfere.
11.The offence under Section 7 of the PC Act (as it stood at the
time of the occurrence in June 2008) requires proof that the public
servant accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to
obtain, gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or
reward for doing an official act. The offence under Section 13(1)(d)
requires proof that the public servant obtained a valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his
position. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that proof
of demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for both
offences, and that mere possession or recovery of currency notes
from the accused, without proof of demand, is not sufficient to
convict. The Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 has clarified that, in the absence
of direct evidence because the complainant turns hostile or is
unavailable, demand may be established by other evidence, including
circumstantial evidence. That decision does not dispense with proof
of demand; it only widens the manner in which it may be proved. The
demand must still be established by cogent and legally admissible
evidence, and the Court cannot presume it.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
12.The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is
available only after the prosecution proves that the accused accepted
or obtained gratification. It is, by the very language of Section 20(1),
confined to offences under Section 7, Section 11 and Section 13(1)(a)
and (b) of the PC Act, and does not extend to Section 13(1)(d). Where
the demand itself is not proved, the acceptance of money cannot be
characterised as acceptance of gratification, and the presumption is
not triggered at all. It is trite that a Court can base a conviction only
on the evidence actually adduced before it. Evidence, as defined in
Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, consists of the statements
which the Court permits or requires the witnesses to make before it.
A Judge is not entitled to improve upon the statement of a witness,
however confident he may be that the witness meant to say what he
supplies, and certainly not to cure a deficiency in the prosecution
evidence on the very ingredient on which the whole case turns. The
trial Court has done precisely that, and the finding of demand
thereby stands vitiated. The prosecution has not pointed to any other
direct or circumstantial evidence which, independent of the
interpolation, establishes the demand. The official witness could, at
best, speak to what he saw and heard at the time of the handing over,
and the prosecution case itself is that the alleged demand preceded
the trap, having been made earlier when the document was
presented for registration. The recitals in Ex.P1, and the allegations
in the complaint, are not substantive evidence. The learned Special
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
Judge has also not dealt with the specific plea of the defence the
judgment merely records the conclusion without reasons. A judgment
of conviction under a penal statute, particularly one in which the
entire case turns on the credibility and content of the testimony of a
single witness, must disclose the process of reasoning by which the
Court has found each ingredient proved. In its absence, the findings
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, demand of illegal gratification has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

13. The learned Government Advocate relied heavily on the
positive phenolphthalein test and the recovery of the tainted notes
from the drawer of the appellant. These are, however, only
circumstances relating to the acceptance and possession of the
money. Recovery by itself is not proof of guilt where the demand is
not established. The money may be found with or in the possession of
an accused for several reasons. The offence is complete only if it was
received as illegal gratification, which requires proof of a demand or,
at least, of a voluntary acceptance with knowledge that it is a bribe.
In the absence of demand, the prosecution has not proved that the
money was accepted as a motive or reward, and the presumption
under Section 20 of the PC Act, which can be invoked only after
acceptance as gratification is established, cannot be drawn. Even
otherwise, as noted above, Section 20 has no application to the
charge under Section 13(1)(d).
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
14.The evidence on acceptance is also not free from doubt. The
learned counsel for the appellant has pointed to the inconsistencies
in the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW12 on how the
money was received and kept, and on the registration of the next
document. PW2 and PW3 professed ignorance of the registration of
document No.4957 of 2008, whereas PW6, PW12 and PW13 admitted
that this document was registered by the appellant immediately after
the subject document presented. The “A” Register records the
registration of 35 documents on that day, with the subject document
th
as the 34 , and PW12 and PW13 have conceded this. That the
appellant was occupied with the registration of the next document at
the very time at which the money is said to have been handed over is
thus established by the prosecution’s own witnesses. These
circumstances give weight to the explanation of the appellant under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the money was placed in his drawer while he
was engaged in registering that document, and they cast doubt on
the prosecution version of demand and conscious and voluntary
acceptance of bribe.
15. The Court must also consider the plea that the complaint
was a device to implicate the appellant. It is settled that an accused
is not required to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt, as the
prosecution must prove its case; it is sufficient for the appellant to
show, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the explanation
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
offered is reasonable and probable, and that is enough to rebut any
presumption in law and to create a doubt in the prosecution case.
The appellant’s explanation is supported by materials on record and
is inherently probable.
16. The above case revolves around the evidence of P.W.2 /
Complainant / Decoy; P.W.3 accompanying witness; P.W.4 / employee
of P.W.2 and vendor to the property in documents Ex.P4 and P.W.5,
the purchaser of the property. P.W.2's evidence is that on 16.06.2008,
he met the appellant at about 10.30 a.m., and shown the document,
Ex.P4 to confirm prioir to registration. At that time it is projected
that appellant demanded a bribe amount of Rs.2000/-. Thereafter,
P.W.2 said to have informed about the demand of bribe to his
employer P.W.4. PW.4 said to have advised PW2 to lodge a
complaint. Hence, P.W.2 approached PW12, respondent, lodged a
complaint and the case was registered at about 11.45 Hrs.
Thereafter, two official witnesses namely PW3 and one Ravikumar
from TNEB were called to be witness for the trap. Ex.P.3 is the
entrustment mahazar, which concluded at about 14.15 hours. It is
admitted by PW3, accompanying witness and P.W.12, Trap Laying
Officer that PW2 not signed in the entrustment mahazar. Hence, the
drawing of entrustment mahazar and date and time is highly
doubtful. PW13, the Investigation Officer admits that statement of
PW2 recorded by PW12 not submitted to the Court. Further,
entrustment mahazar / Ex.P3 reached Court only on 14.08.2009, after
an inordinate and unexplained delay and no explanation whatsoever.
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
17. Further, P.W.2 stated that his employer P.W.4 came to the
Vigilance Office and that both P.W.2 and P.W.4 left the Vigilance office
in their vehicle and reached the Sub Registrar Office. P.W3, PW12
and Trap Team officials came into two vehicles separately and
thereafter, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 went and met the appellant.
PW4's evidence is that PW2 called him through mobile and asked him
to come to the Registration Office. PW4 and PW5 Registration Office
10 minutes latter, PW2 and PW3 came to the Sub Registrar Office.
Thus, there is material contradiction in the evidence of PW2 with
regard to presence of PW4 and PW5. Added to it, it is seen in the
recovery mahazar, Ex.P9, there is no mention about the presence of
PW4 and PW5 at the time of demand and handing over the bribe
amount.

18. PW4 is a realtor running a firm under the name of “Sai
Builders” engaged in layout development, plotting, construction for
over 15 years, frequently executing sale deed at the Sub Registrar
Office. The appellant joined as Sub Registrar, Thambaram on
10.08.2007, which is confirmed by PW2 and PW13. It could be seen
that PW4 developed the layouts in the name of “Sai Ayush
Rameshaa” and he executed sale deed for plot No.1-C in faovur of
PW5. Prior to this, PW4 submitted 24 sale deeds for the same layout,
undervaluing the plots at Rs.262/- sqft. Doubting the valuation, the
appellant, kept the document pending P317/2007, referred the
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
documents to the District Registrar for enquiry and correct valuation
who conducted enquiry, found the adjacent plots in the same survey
number, developed in the name of “Cousic Avenue” and its valuation
is Rs.500/- sqft. Hence, I.G of Registration confirms the objection
raised by the appellant, refixed the value of the property from
Rs.262/-sqft to Rs.500/-sqft. Hence, PW4 suffered an additional
expenditure of Rs.7,68,850/= and causing a loss. Hence, there was
animosity developed against the appellant. Further, the appellant
insisted that the documents should presented by the vendor and the
buyer or by her power of attorney and not by anyone. Hence, he
objected P.W.2 presenting the documents for 'Sai Builders'.
19. PW4 and PW13 admit no power of attorney produced to
present the documents for registration. Further, the appellant was
following online registration and time slot which caused difficulty to
PW4. Hence, PW4 set up PW5 and projected as though a sale deed is
executed for Plot No.1C and there was a demand of bribe amount. It
is seen in Ex.P4, it is recorded that sale consideration of
Rs.7,37,500/- was paid in cash. But, PW5, the purchaser confirms
that he paid sale consideration by cheque and through bank. He
further reconfirms that he and his wife mobilized the amount and
paid the sale consideration through bank. Further, he reconfirms
that the purchase of sale property and his bank transactions have all
declared in his Income Tax Return. But, PW12, the Investigation
Officer fails to confirm how the sale consideration paid. PW2 and
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
PW4 admit that in their office there is separate Accounts
Department, which maintains the Accounts for receipt of sale
consideration and thereafter documents prepared, submitted for
registration. In this case, no evidence collected to show for receipt
of sale consideration whether by cash or through bank.
20. Added to it, it is to be seen that Plot No.1C, sale deed was
executed by PW4 to PW5 in the year 2014 for Rs.85,00,000/- to Reva
Phonix Engineers and Consultancy India Private Limited Managing
Director, Manikandan. The said document marked as Ex.D1. Under
Ex.D1, the land value was apportioned at Rs.29,50,000/- and the
building structure value at Rs.55,50,506/-. Thus, the foundational
fact that the appellant demanded bribe amount of Rs.2000/- for
accepting Ex.P4 gets demolished and it is clear that PW5 is only a
name lender. Though PW4 executed Ex.D1 in 2008 again executed
another sale deed for the same property in the year 2014. Thus,
Ex.P4 is only a created document and PW5 is the name lender. Thus,
once the foundational fact collapses, the entire facts falls to the
ground. Further, PW2's evidence is clear that he gone along with
PW4. But the evidence of PW3 is that PW2 and PW3, and official
witness Rajkumar alone, went with PW12 / Trap Laying Officer to the
appellant's office. Hence, presence of decoy, accompanying witness
and other witnesses to the Trap are highly doubtful in the manner
projected by the prosecution.
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
21. Further, in this case, the specific defence of the appellant is
that the appellant was busy on that day, totally 35 documents
th
presented for registration and Ex.P4 is the 34 document after
th
admitting Ex.P4 the appellant was enquiring the registration of 35
document in Doc.No.4957, which is recorded in “A” Register, Ex.P11
and P12. PW7 is the Joint Sub Registrar; PW8 Assistant; PW9 Office
Assistant and PW11 Junior Assistant all confirm the same. Further it
is admitted by the witnesses that it was a busy day at about 5.00
p.m., there were about 30 persons who were in the office in
connection with Registration work and the appellant was busy with
registration of document No.35. At that time, taking advantage of
the situation, MO1, trap amount, dropped in the drawer of the
appellant, thereafter PW12 came there, forced the appellant to
handle the amount dropped in the drawer, thereafter, projected that
phenolphthalein test positive. The appellant gave explanation in his
313 questioning and through cross-examination of the witnesses, but
the trial Court failed to consider his explanation. Further, added
to it, the appellant examined two official witnesses DW1 and DW2
and he marked 2 documents not considered by the trial Court. A
cumulative analysis of the evidence unequivocally demonstrates that
PW4 harboured a strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant due
to objection raised by appellant over property valuation and
procedural compliance. PW4, the President of Builders Association
compelled to pay additional amount, for refixed value at the instance
of the appellant and appellant insisting to adhere to slot for
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
presentation of the document caused lot of inconvenience developed
a gruse and animosity. Hence, PW4 through his employee PW2 and
name lender PW5 foisted a false case.

22. PW12 failed to properly perform his duties and not
produced any material evidence to establish that the appellant was
with doubtful integrity . On the contrary, the evidence shows that the
document was presented and accepted, and that it was forwarded to
the concerned staff for taking an additional photograph, scanning the
document, and recording fingerprints. All these procedures
completed without delay. Further, P.W.3's presence is highly doubtful,
PW3 admit he had not signed any of the documents except the
recovery mahazar marked as Ex.P9. The other documents, namely
Exs.P4 to P8, seized from the appellant’s office. None signed by PW3.
It is also to be noted that, following the trap, search in the residence
of appellant conducted on the same day between 9:15 p.m. and 9:45
p.m., and NIL report submitted , as evidenced by Ex.P10.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on certain
lapses in the conduct of the trap. Rule 47 of the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Manual requires that the explanation of the accused be
recorded immediately after the arrest; PW12 did not do so, and the
appellant was thereby denied the first opportunity to explain how the
money came to be in his drawer and that this omission is a serious
lapse. Similarly, PW7 has deposed that PW13, the Deputy
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
Superintendent of Police, after organising and piloting the trap,
handed over the charge of the appellant to him on 16.06.2008 at SRO
Tambaram, and PW.13 then conducted the investigation. The
combination of the roles of the trap officer and the investigating
officer is contrary to Rule 53 of the Manual and to the Circular
No.28680/VAC-4-90 dated 18.09.1990 and 04.06.1991. Further,
though seven to eight officials were present in the office at the time
of the alleged demand and acceptance, none of them cited and
examined as a witness. The shadow witnesses, who accompany the
complainant on the instructions of the trap officer, cannot be treated
as independent witnesses. I do not find it necessary to decide
whether each of the above lapses, individually, would vitiate the trial,
as the appeal can be disposed of on the failure of the prosecution to
prove demand. But the Court cannot ignore these circumstances. The
trap officer’s dual role, the omission to record the explanation of the
appellant at the earliest, and the failure to examine independent
witnesses who were available, are circumstances which, together
with the infirmities discussed above, weaken the reliability of the
prosecution case and enhance the doubt in the mind of the Court.

24. To sum up, the prosecution has failed to prove, by legally
admissible evidence, the demand of illegal gratification by the
appellant. The finding of the trial Court on demand was reached by
reading into the deposition of PW2 an amount which the witness had
not stated. Acceptance is not established as gratification, and the
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is not available. The
probable defence of the appellant, and the material lapses in the
conduct of the trap, were left unanswered by the trial Court. Hence,
the conviction cannot be sustained, and the appellant is acquitted
from all charges.
25. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The
conviction and sentence passed in Spl.Case No.4/2009 by the learned
Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, vide
Judgment dated 27.03.2019 are set aside. The Bail bond, if any,
executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if
any, paid shall be refunded to the appellant.
16.10.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes / No
mpk
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
To
1. Special Judge-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
SIC-I, Chennai – 600 028
3. Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.210 of 2019
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
mpk
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
CRL.A.No.210 of 2019
16.10.2026
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )