MR. P. BALUCHAMY vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
- Court
- Madras High Court
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 07.08.2026
PRONOUNCED ON: 10.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
P. Baluchamy ..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,
Vigilance And Anti Corruption,
Sivagangai District.
[Crime No.5/2000]
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records of the judgment dated 12.12.218
in SplCC.No.8 of 2014 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai District in
Crime No.5 of 2000 on the file of the respondent police and set aside the
same and acquit the appellant / sole accused.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson,
Government Advocate
__________
Page 1 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal is arising out of the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Sivagangai District in Spl.C.C.No.8 of 2014. By
judgment dated 12.12.2018, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for
the offence punishable under Sections 409, 466, 467, 471 and 201 of IPC
and under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, convicted and sentenced him as follows:
- to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months
simple imprisonment under Section 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 ; and
- to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further six months
simple imprisonment each for the offence under Sections 409, 466, 467,
471 and 201 IPC. The above said sentences were ordered to run
concurrently.
__________
Page 2 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i)The appellant was the President of the Nenjathur Village
Panchayat, Sivagangai district. The appellant as the panchayat president
sold the tiles, windows, doors of a demolished old school building under
his control, in a public auction on 13.01.1999 to one Kanan [PW2] /
defacto complainant for Rs.10,000/- and he collected Rs.5,000/- as part
of the sale price from PW2 on the same day. However he did not issue
any receipt for the same and also did not deposit the said amount to the
panchayat accounts. The appellant did not permit him to take all the
auctioned materials and therefore, PW2 had left some materials worth
about Rs.1,500/-. While so PW2 had lodged a complaint dated
25.10.2000 [Ex.P2] before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Sivagangai
Unit alleging that he had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the date of auction
and paid the balance Rs.5,000/- few days later to the appellant towards
the auction sale price. However, the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/- as
illegal gratification to issue receipt for the payment of auction sale price
of Rs.10,000/- and to permit him to take the remaining materials.
PW2 was not inclined to pay the illegal gratification and therefore he
lodged the complaint to take action as against the appellant.
__________
Page 3 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
(ii) On receipt of the complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Sivagangai [Trap Laying Officer /
TLO] registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2000 as against the appellant
for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
on the same day. He also informed his higher officials about this
complaint.
(iii) The TLO / PW31 obtained permission for laying a trap and
requested for Group B or C officials from the office of the Divisional
Engineer, Highways Department and Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu
Civil Supplies Corporation, Sivagangai for assistance in the trap.
Accordingly, one Thirunavukkarasu [PW20], Assistant, Office of the
Divisional Engineer, Highways Department and one Nagalingam,
Superintendent, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Sivagangai were
present before him and the TLO gave a copy of the FIR [ExP57] for
knowing about the complaint and they also enquired the complainant
about the complaint. The TLO obtained Rs.5,000/- [Rs.500 X 10] from
the complainant, which was meant for giving to the appellant and the
serial number of the currencies were noted down in the entrustment
mahazar [ExP3] and they conducted a pre-trap demonstration in the
presence of the complainant [PW2], official witness [PW20] and other
__________
Page 4 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
Police parties. The said Rs.5,000/- coated with phenolphthalein powder
was handed over to PW2 for giving to the appellant. The TLO instructed
PW2 to meet the appellant at his office and if the appellant demands
money, then only he should give the money to the appellant.
(iv)The TLO asked PW2 to act according to the instructions of the
appellant. Accordingly, PW2 along with the official Nagalingam went to
the office of the appellant around 2.15pm on 25.10.2000 to the Block
Development Office, where PW2 met the appellant and told him that he
had brought the money as demanded by him and PW2 handed over the
phenolphthalein coated money of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant. The
appellant received the same.
(v) After receipt of the bribe amount by the appellant, PW2 came
out of the office and had shown the pre-arranged signal to the TLO, who
along with his team was waiting outside the BDO office. On noticing the
signal, the police party went inside the BDO office. The TLO introduced
himself and the official witness to the appellant. Each hand of the
appellant was subjected to the phenolphthalein test and the solution
turned into pink in colour and the said solutions were recovered in
separate bottles [MOs.1 & 2] and the same was attested by the appellant,
witnesses and the TLO.
__________
Page 5 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
(vi) On enquiry by the TLO, the appellant admitted the receipt of
Rs.5,000/- [MO.5] from PW2, which was kept inside the table of one
Junior Assistant. The said money was recovered and the same tallied with
the entrustment mahazar [ExP3]. Further the appellant produced some
receipt books and the acknowledgment for the receipt issued by PW2,
which is marked as Ex.P47. Receipt No.108075, dated 25.10.2000
showing the name of PW2 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- is marked as Ex.P.28.
Then the TLO collected Ex.P.58 a letter addressed by PW2 to the District
Collector. He also prepared recovery mahazar [ExP39] and rough sketch
[ExP59] and the same was attested by the appellant, TLO and the
witnesses. He conducted a search in the house of the appellant and
prepared a mahazar [ExP.40] and conducted a search in the office of the
appellant and prepared a mahazar [Ex.P41]. He collected the
Exs.P.42,43,44 and 45 from the office of the appellant. He prepared an
observation mahazar [Ex.P.46]. Subsequently, the appellant was taken to
the Vigilance and Anti Corruption office, was arrested and released on
bail by the TLO.
(vii) The TLO placed all the materials he collected, before the
Investigating Officer / PW32. He conducted preliminary investigation.
PW33 is the subsequent investigating officer and he has recorded the
__________
Page 6 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
statement of some of the witnesses and conducted part of the
investigation. PW34 is another investigating officer and after completion
of the investigation, PW34 filed a final report against the appellant for the
offence under Sections 471 and 201 IPC r/w 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and
13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, before the Special Court
for trial of cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sivagangai
and the same was taken on file in SplCC.No.8 of 2014.
3.During trial On the side of the prosecution 34 witnesses were
examined as PW1 to PW34, 80 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.80 and 5 material objects were produced as MO.1 to MO.5.
4.The available prosecution evidence are as follows:
(i) PW1 is the then District Collector, Sivagangai and he has
accorded sanction [ExP1] for prosecuting the appellant.
(ii) PW2 is the defacto complainant and he speaks about the
demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant for allowing
him to take the remaining goods, which were taken on public auction and
lodging of complaint [ExP2] before the Vigilance and Anticorruption
Wing, Madurai.
__________
Page 7 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
(iii) PW7 is the wife of PW2 and she speaks about the demand
made by the appellant to his husband.
(iv) PW10 is the then Assistant Director (Panchayats), Sivagangai
and he speaks about the enquiry conducted by him on 26.10.2000 about
the complaint of the defacto complainant.
(iv) PW20, the Assistant from the Office of the Divisional
Engineer, Highways Department, in whose presence the appellant
admitted the receipt of the bribe money and the phenolphthalein test was
conducted on the hands and of the appellant.
(v) PW26 is the Scientific Assistant at Forensic Science
Department, Chennai and he speaks about the presence of the
phenolphthalein in MOs.1 to 5 and issuance of chemical analysis report
[ExP52].
(vi) PW31 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and
Anticorruption, Sivagangai unit [TLO] and he speaks about the complaint
lodged by PW2, registration of FIR, summoning of official witness,
preparation of entrustment mahazar and the trap executed by him and the
preparation of observation mahazar and rough sketch and the arrest of the
appellant in the presence of the official witness and police party.
__________
Page 8 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
(vii)PW32 is the investigation officer, who conducted preliminary
enquiry in this case and he has recorded the statement of some of the
witnesses and collected some exhibits.
(viii)PW33 is the subsequent investigating officer, who completed
the investigation, prepared the final report and sent the final report to the
Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department.
(ix) PW34 is the another investigating officer, who has filed the
final report before the court.
5.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the
incriminating circumstances were put before the appellant and the
appellant denied the same as false. The appellant has neither examined
anyone nor marked any document on his side.
6.The trial Court, after completion of the trial and after hearing the
arguments on either side, found the appellant guilty, convicted and
sentenced as stated supra. As against the conviction and sentence, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal.
__________
Page 9 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
7.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised
the following points:
(i)The appellant Panchayat President is not a public servant and his
services as Panchayat President is rendered as per Section 119(2) of the
Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act.
(ii)PW2 has participated in the auction conducted by the panchayat
with regard to the materials collected from the demolished old school
building and he won the auction for auction sale of price of Rs.10,000/-
on 13.01.1999. He claimed to have paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the same
day and paid the remaining amount of Rs.5,000/- within few days.
nd
However, there is no material placed for the payment of this 2 sum of
Rs.5,000/- by PW2.
(iii)The complaint is a motivated one at the instance of PW4, who
contested twice as against this appellant in the panchayat election and lost
the election. The wife of the complainant/ PW7 was a ward member of
the panchayat. Those, who could not defeat the appellant in the election,
has foisted this false complaint as against this appellant, as if this
appellant had demanded money in connection with the auction.
(iv)A sum of Rs.5,000/- said to have been paid by the complainant
on 25.10.2000 to the appellant, is the balance auction sale price amount
due from the complainant to the panchayat. The appellant had issued
__________
Page 10 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
receipt for the same. This amount was also credited in the account of the
panchayat. Therefore, this amount cannot be termed as bribe or illegal
gratification. The complainant, who had succeeded in the auction, had
paid the balance auction sale price on 25.10.2000. However, he
approached, as if there was demand by the appellant for the same.
(v)PW32, PW33 and PW34 are the investigating officers in this
case and they have in categorical terms stated that there was no evidence
for bribe and this amount paid by the defacto complainant on 25.10.2000
is the balance amount due from him towards the auction sale price.
(vi)The defacto complainant is an encroacher of a water body
situated within the pachayat of the appellant. The appellant being the
panchayat president, had taken up this cause of encroachment, submitted
several representations repeatedly to the officials concerned for removal
of the same.
(vii) The report of the Tahsildar, Ilayankudi dated 05.10.2000 sent
to the District Collector, Sivagangai in Oo.Mu.No.A2/8716/2000 reveals
that based on the complaint of this appellant / the Panchayat President of
Nenjathur Village, the encroachments made by PW2 and PW12 were
__________
Page 11 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
removed by the Revenue Officials. Therefore, this complaint of the
alleged demand, dated 25.10.2000, is lodged within 20 days from the
removal of encroachment made by the defacto complainant, with an
ulterior motive to wreak vengeance. This amount paid by the defacto
complainant on 25.10.2000 is the balance auction sale price, due from
him to the panchayat and it is not bribe money as alleged by the
prosecution.
(viii) PW2 due to the election motive also has targeted this
appellant. He has lodged two complaints under the SC/ST (POA) Act, as
against this appellant and others in Crime No.34 of 1999 on the file of the
PCR Unit, Sivagangai, prior to the trap that this appellant along with
three others has abused the defacto complainant / PW2 on 11.12.1999.
This case ended in acquittal. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred
another such complaint lodged by PW2 as against this appellant under the
provisions of the SC/AT (POA) Act by referring to the evidence of the
investigating officer/PW32. However, there is no material to that effect.
(ix) As per evidence of the then Assistant Director (Panchayats),
PW10, based the complaint of the defacto complainant he conducted an
enquiry on 16.10.2000, wherein the defacto complainant agreed to pay
__________
Page 12 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
the balance auction sale price within a period of one week and to get the
receipt. He also enquired the President Vellaichamy and he deposed that
the defacto complainant had not paid the balance auction sale price of
Rs.5,000/- and therefore, the receipt was not given.\
(x)However, the complaint was lodged after one week on
25.10.2000 and based on the same, the trap was organised on 25.10.2000.
Therefore, this Rs.5,000/- paid by the defacto complainant on 25.10.2000,
projected as bribe by him, is the amount due to the panchayat from PW2.
The trial court without appreciating the evidence of PW10 and the other
materials has wrongly come to the conclusion that this appellant has
committed the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
(xi)PW2 had referred to different dates in his evidence with regard
nd
to source for this 2 payment of Rs.5,000/-. PW2 claimed that he
pledged jewels through PW8 Iyyakannu. However, according to PW8, the
jewels were pledged on 27.09.1999 for a sum of Rs.2,000/-, another set of
jewels were pledged on 18.11.1999 for a sum of Rs.5,000/-, yet another
pledge on 18.11.1999 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and on 03.04.2000 for a
sum of Rs.2,000/- etc., these dates are very remote to the auction date on
31.01.1999.
__________
Page 13 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
(xii)PW7 is the wife of PW2 and she was a ward member of the
said panchayat. As per her evidence her relative's jewels were pledged by
them to pay the auction sale price, but in her cross examination, she
admitted that she was unaware of the exact details as to when, where and
how much sovereigns of gold were pledged. She did not state or produce
the documents pertaining to the alleged pledge. She did not state when
the defacto complainant sought receipt for the payment of auction sale
price but she was aware it is the duty of clerk to issue the receipt.
Therefore, the learned senior counsel submits that the defacto
complainant having succeeded in the auction on 13.01.1999, paid a part
on the same day, however, has not paid the balance amount.
On 25.10.2000, he paid the balance amount and it was also credited into
the account of the panchayat and receipt was also given. Therefore, there
is no loss to the panchayat or illegal gratification was accepted by the
appellant. It is to be noted that the petitioner being the president had
taken initiatives for removal of the encroachments made by the defacto
complainant and others in a water body and also due to the election
motive, the defacto complainant had already lodged the complaints under
the SC/ST (POA) Act, and finally foisted this complaint to wreak
vengeance as against the appellant. However, the trial court has not
__________
Page 14 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
considered the evidence and the documents with regard to the same and
convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal be allowed the appellant be
acquitted of the charges.
8.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent
has made his submissions as under:
(i)The appellant the President of the panchayat is a public servant.
It is also corroborated by the evidence of PW10 Murugan, then Block
Development Officer of Ilayangudi Panchayat Union, who had deposed
in his evidence that the appellant is a public servant.
(ii)The appellant being the public servant, having dominion over
the said old school building at Nenjathur, had sold the tiles, windows,
doors, etc.., of the building in a public auction on 13.01.1999 to one
Kanan for a sum of Rs 10,000/-, collected a sum of Rs.5,000/- from him
as a part of the auction sale price on the same day and without issuing any
receipt and without bringing it into the accounts of the panchayat till
25.10.2000, the appellant dishonestly misappropriated the said amount
for his own use and thereby the appellant had committed an offence
punishable under Section 409 IPC.
__________
Page 15 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
(iii)The defacto complainant Kanan preferred a complaint to the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Sivagangai Unit alleging that he paid
Rs.5,000/- on the date of auction on 13.01.1999 itself and the balance of
Rs.5,000/-within a few days thereafter to the appellant, towards the
auction sale amount. He had taken the auctioned materials except the tiles
worth about Rs.1,500/- and the appellant was demanding Rs.5,000/- as
illegal gratification to issue receipt for the said amount of Rs.10,000/- and
to permit him to get the remaining materials.
(iv)On 25.10.2000, around 3.00 pm during the trap executed by the
TLO, the appellant accepted the alleged illegal gratification in
connection with the auction sale, obtained the phenolphthalein coated
money of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant at the Panchayat
Union Office at Ilayangudi and issued a false receipt immediately, as if he
had received the entire auction sale price of Rs.10,000/- only on
25.10.2000 with an intention to cause the disappearance of the evidence
of the offence committed by him and to screen himself from legal
punishment. Further with the same intention, the appellant had
interpolated the entries in the Resolution Book of Nenjathur Panchayat as
if a resolution was passed to auction the said old building materials on
__________
Page 16 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
13.01.2000, interpolated the year of auction in the paper containing the
auction details as 2000 and gave a false report in writing on 24.12.1999 to
the B.DO, Ilayangudi that the above said old materials were not at all
auctioned. The tainted money of Rs.5000/- was seized by the Vigilance
Police during the trap on 25.10.2000 from the appellant and then
appellant remitted Rs.5000/- through the Panchayat Board Clerk into the
Panchayat Board account in Sivagangai District Central Co-Operative
Bank at Ilayangudi on 27.10.2000. The appellant used the above
mentioned forged documents as genuine so as to make it to appear that
the auction sale took place only on 13.01.2000 and to show that the full
auction sale amount of Rs.10,000/ was collected on 25.10.2000 and
thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s.466, 467,
471 and 201 IPC.
(v)The appellant by misusing his official position as a Public
servant dishonestly and fraudulently sold the above mentioned old
building materials, under his control, in a public auction to the defacto
complainant on 13.01.1999 at Nenjathur without any authority for the
same and without the knowledge of the Panchayat Union authorities. He
had also misappropriated a part of the sale proceeds of Rs.5000/-
collected from the defacto complainant on the date of auction and
__________
Page 17 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
remitted the said amount into the Panchayat account only on 27.10.2000
and thereby the appellant had also committed an offence punishable
u/s.13(1)(c) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The learned Government Advocate therefore submits that the trial court
considered all the prosecution evidence and the documents and rightly
convicted the appellant and hence prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
9.This Court has paid its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and perused the materials placed on record.
10.The appellant, President of a Panchayat had been prosecuted
that he had demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto
complainant as illegal gratification in connection with an auction
conducted by the panchayat. The appellant an elected panchayat president
of Nenjathur Village, received a sum of Rs.5,000/- from PW2 on
25.10.2000 in the presence of the PW.20 / shadow witness. This sum of
Rs.5,000/- is a phenolphthalein coated money arranged for the trap by the
Vigilance Department based on the complaint of the defacto complainant
dated 25.10.2000. The appellant claims that this sum of Rs.5,000/- is the
balance amount towards auction sale price due from PW2 to the
__________
Page 18 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
panchayat and PW2 in order to avoid to pay the balance amount has
foisted this false complaint due to the previous motive.
11.The learned senior counsel for the appellant from the materials
placed on record demonstrated that there was an election dispute between
the defacto complainant and the appellant and the action taken by the
appellant as the panchayat president, as against the defacto complainant,
who had encroached a water body and due to this motive the defacto
complainant had foisted this false complaint.
12.Perusal of Ex.P72 discloses that there were some complaints by
the appellant and the villagers repeatedly as against the encroachments
made by the defacto complainant and others, to the District Collector,
Tahsildar and other authorities. The encroachments made in a water body
by PW2, PW12 and 5 others were removed by the Tahsildar, Ilayankudi
on 05.10.2000 based on the complaint of this appellant dated 17.09.1999
and the Tahsildar, Ilayankudi reported the same to the District Collector,
Sivagangai by his proceedings in Omu.No.A2/8716/2000, dated
05.10.2000.
__________
Page 19 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
13.The trap was arranged on 25.10.2000 based on the complaint of
PW2 dated 25.10.2000. The action as against the encroachment was
initiated on 17.09.1999 and culminated in removal of the encroachment
on 05.10.2000. In the interregnum period, it appears that the complaint
had been lodged by PW2 as against this appellant and 3 others before the
Sivagangai PCR Unit in Crime No.34 of 1999 for the offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989. This complaint was
lodged on 11.12.1999, which is after the appellant had initiated action for
removal of encroachment in the water body by lodging complaint to the
officials concerned. Further Ex.P7 a complaint was also lodged as against
this appellant by the defacto complainant and others. He has also lodged
a complaint dated 25.09.2000 to the District Collector as against the
appellant. However perusal of these complaints do not reveal that there
was any demand of money by the appellant, but it was alleged that the
receipt for Rs.10,000/- paid by the defacto complainant, was not issued.
The defacto complainant claims that he complainant had paid a sum of
Rs.5,000/- on 13.01.1999 and he had paid the balance amount of
Rs.5,000/- within few days. However, the evidence of PW.10 / the then
Assistant Director (Panchayats) shows that he conducted an enquiry on
16.10.2000 and before him the defacto complainant had admitted that he
would pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- within period of one week
__________
Page 20 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
and would collect the receipt and also the president Vellaichamy had
stated that since the defacto complainant had not paid the balance
amount, the receipt was not issued. Ex.P16 the office note in
Na.Ka.No.A5/6331/2000 also corroborates the same.
14.Admittedly there was a public auction of the materials of a
demolished school building. The defacto complainant had participated in
the auction and bid highest auction sale price of Rs.10,000/- on
13.01.1999. He is said to have paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on 25.10.2000 on
the date of trap. The defacto complainant PW2 is the husband of PW7,
who is a ward member of the panchayat.
15.The auction was conducted on 31.01.1999. The defacto
complainant claimed that though he had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- on the
date of auction itself, he was not allowed to take all the materials.
However, there is no proof for the payment of this money. The
investigation was also initially conducted by PW32 and thereafter, by
PW33 and PW.34. These investigating officers in their evidence have
stated that this amount of Rs.5,000/- paid by PW2 on 25.10.2000 is the
amount due from PW2 towards the auction sale price to the panchayat
and it is not illegal gratification demanded by the appellant.
__________
Page 21 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
16.The mistake committed by the panchayat president is that he did
not issue any receipt for Rs.5,000/- which is said to be collected by him
from PW2 on the date of auction on 13.01.1999. As rightly pointed by the
learned senior counsel, it is the responsibility of the panchayat secretary,
to prepare receipt but not the panchayat president.
17.In this case the panchayat secretary was shown in the list of
witnesses. However, he was not examined during the trial. The non
examination of the panchayat secretary would certainly affect the case of
the prosecution with regard to the auction, the payment of Rs.5,000/- said
to be made by PW2 towards auction sale price on 13.01.1999 and the
entries made in the registers.
18.There were entries in the panchayat resolution book on
11.02.2000 as resolution No.58 that the auction can be approved only
after full payment made by PW2 and this resolution had been signed by
the president and other members of the panchayat. This resolution,
according to the prosecution, had been inserted by the panchayat
president and thereby he committed the offence under Sections 466, 467
and 471 IPC. However, the prosecution has not proved the same by
examining other signatories to that resolution and other members of the
__________
Page 22 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
panchayat that this resolution No.58 had been interpolated by the
appellant.
19.According to the investigation officers, the resolution book has
to be maintained by the panchayat secretary. However surprisingly in this
case the panchayat secretary, cited in the list of witnesses, was not
examined by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, the receipt of
Rs.5,000/- on the date of auction had been admitted by the appellant.
However, the same has been remitted along with the balance amount of
Rs.5,000/- to the panchayat funds vide Ex.P28 only on 25.10.2000.
Therefore, according to the learned Government Advocate this appellant
panchayat president had retained a sum of Rs.5,000/- paid by PW2 on the
date of auction till 25.10.2000, which amounts to criminal
misappropriation and the offence under Sections 406 and 409 IPC is
made out.
20.The issuance of receipts and remittance of the amount is the
duty of the panchayat secretary. No doubt this appellant is also having
certain responsibilities. However, the available materials would not
attract the offence under Sections 406 and 409 of IPC. The criminal
breach of trust is defined under Section 405 IPC and the same is extracted
__________
Page 23 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
hereunder:
“ 405. Criminal breach of trust.—
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use that property,
or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in
violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal
contract, express or implied, which he has made touching
the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other
person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.
21.The materials which were recovered from the demolished old
school building were auctioned on 13.01.1999. According to PW10, the
complainant claimed that this appellant has not issued any receipt for the
payment of Rs.5,000/- made by him on 13.01.1999 and insisted for the
balance Rs.5,000/-. PW10 in fact suggested PW2 to pay the balance
amount and PW2 has agreed to pay this amount of Rs.5,000/- within a
week. Therefore, from the evidence of PW10, it appears that this sum of
Rs.5,000/- is the balance amount due from the PW2 to the panchayat.
Further according to P.W.18 / the then Assistant of Ilayankudi Panchayat
Union, on 24.10.2000 there was a dispute between the appellant and the
defacto complainant in his office before the cabin of the Block
Development Officer and on enquiry, it was found the defacto
__________
Page 24 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
complainant demanded receipt for Rs.10,000/- but he admitted that he
had to pay a balance amount of Rs.5,000/- and he also agreed to pay it on
the next day. This amount was paid after lodging of the complaint that the
appellant had demanded additional amount of Rs.5,000/- for taking away
the goods. Form the complaint and the evidence of PW2, it appears that
the appellant had not permitted PW2 to take the entire goods, pursuant to
the auction, for want of payment of balance amount.
22.Considering that this amount of Rs.5,000/- paid by the defacto
complainant on 25.10.2000 is the part amount due to the panchayat from
PW2. The appellant did not issue any receipt for the amount said to have
been paid on 13.01.1999 and at the same time he did not allow the
complainant to take the goods. On receipt of this Rs.5,000/- on
25.10.2000 the appellant has issued the receipt and has also credited the
same to the panchayat account. Moreover, the panchayat secretary neither
had been examined as witness nor added as an accused, who is supposed
to issue receipts for any payment to the panchayat.
23.The date of auction, the date of the complaints lodged by the
appellant as against the encroachments made by the defacto complainant
and other, the date of the complaints lodged by the defacto complainant
__________
Page 25 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
as against the appellant under the SC/ST(POA) Act and this complaint,
establish a clear motive between the defacto complainant and the
appellant.
24.With the available materials and in view of the above
discussion, it is not safe to convict the appellant for the charges levelled
as against him.
25.In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment dated
12.12.218 passed in SplCC.No.8 of 2014 by the Special Court for Trial
of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Sivagangai District is
hereby 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.
10-11-2026
DSK
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC :Yes/ No
__________
Page 26 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
To
1.The Special Judge,
The Special Court for Trial of Cases
under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Pubic Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper (2 Copies),
Criminal Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras,
Madurai.
__________
Page 27 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )
CRL A(MD) No. 3 of 2019
B.PUGALENDHI,J.
DSK
CRL A(MD)No.3 of 2019
10.11.2026
__________
Page 28 of 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 11/11/2026 10:30:57 am )