MR.R.MANIVEL, AGED 51 YEARS, vs THE STATE REP. BY

CRL A No.506 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment
18.09.2026 16.10.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL A No.506 of 2018

CNR: {HCMA010428432018}
Mr.R.Manivel,
S/o.Rangasamy,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Generation and Distribution
Corporation, Avarampalayam,
Coimbatore District.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
The State,
Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Coimbatore District. (Crime No.05/2015/AC/CB)
..Respondent(s)
Prayer :- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to allow the
appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant
by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, Coimbatore, in Special C.C.No.5 of 2017, on his file and acquit
him of the charges framed against the appellant.
For Appellant(s): Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.R.Sivakumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.T.Harshana
__________
Page1 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused, who was convicted by the Trial Court in
Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2017 by judgment dated 10.08.2018, has preferred the present
Criminal Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence.
2 . The Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo four
years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to
undergo four months of simple imprisonment. He was also convicted for the
offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo four years of rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo four
months of simple imprisonment.
3 The case of the Prosecution: . -
3.1 . The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as an
Assistant Executive Engineer in the TNEB/TANGEDCO Office at
Avarampalayam, Coimbatore District. He demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- from
the de facto complainant, Baladhandapani (P.W.2), as illegal gratification for
providing a new electricity service connection to a house constructed in the
name of the de facto complainant's wife, Velumani.
__________
Page2 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
3.2 . The house consisted of a ground floor and a first floor, and each
portion had been separately assessed by the Coimbatore Corporation.
Consequently, the de facto complainant sought two independent electricity
service connections. During February 2015, one of the applications was
processed, and the corresponding service connection was energised. However,
the appellant raised an objection to the second application on the ground that the
two portions were not physically segregated and that an internal staircase
connected the ground floor with the first floor. According to the appellant, the
portions could not, therefore, be treated as independent units. The de facto
complainant was advised to submit the second application in May 2015.
3.3 . On 23.05.2015, the appellant contacted the de facto complainant over
the telephone and demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification for
providing the second service connection.
3.4. On 01.06.2015, at about 10.00 a.m., the de facto complainant visited
the appellant's office. At that time, the appellant initialled the application and
recommended that it be processed. He directed the Commercial Inspector,
Subramani (P.W.5), to prepare the estimate, while the licensed contractor,
Patturajan (P.W.8), had furnished the relevant energy consumption particulars.
__________
Page3 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
3.5 . On the same day, the estimated cost was calculated at Rs.16,450/-,
which the de facto complainant paid to P.W.5. However, the alleged demand for
illegal gratification continued. Consequently, the de facto complainant
approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing and lodged a complaint on
01.06.2015.
3.6 . The Trap Laying Officer, Inspector of Police Vijayalakshmi
(P.W.10), examined the de facto complainant and ascertained whether he was
willing to stand by his complaint. On 02.06.2015, she sent the de facto
complainant, accompanied by Ravichandran, a Head Constable, to meet the
appellant. A voice recorder was kept in the de facto complainant's pocket to
record their conversation.
3.7 . During the meeting, the appellant reiterated his demand for
Rs.15,000/-. The de facto complainant explained that he had already paid the
requisite fees and charges and that his wife was undergoing medical treatment.
He further stated that he had only Rs.7,000/- with him. The appellant accepted
Rs.5,000/- and directed the de facto complainant to pay the balance of
Rs.10,000/- on the following day.
3.8 . After returning from the appellant's office, the de facto complainant
informed P.W.10 of the events. P.W.10 proceeded with the necessary
__________
Page4 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
formalities, registered the First Information Report, and secured the presence of
official witnesses, including Annadurai (P.W.3) and Usharani. The pre-trap
proceedings were conducted, and the procedure and significance of the
phenolphthalein test were explained to the witnesses.
3.9 . The de facto complainant brought Rs.10,000/- for the proposed trap.
Before leaving the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Office, he contacted the
appellant over the telephone and confirmed his availability. Thereafter, the de
facto complainant, P.W.3, and the trap team proceeded towards the appellant's
office.
3.10 . The de facto complainant and P.W.3 were dropped near the office,
and P.W.3 was instructed to accompany the de facto complainant, observe the
proceedings, and overhear their conversation. When they reached the office, the
appellant was not present at his seat. Upon being contacted over the telephone,
he informed the de facto complainant that he was having food at the restaurant
opposite the office.
3.11 . The de facto complainant and P.W.3 went to the restaurant and
waited for approximately ten minutes. Thereafter, the appellant, the de facto
complainant, and P.W.3 entered the appellant's office together.
__________
Page5 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
3.12 . It is the further case of prosecution that the appellant again
demanded the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/-. The de facto complainant handed
over the tainted currency notes, which the appellant received, counted with both
hands, and kept in the drawer of the table on his right-hand side. The appellant
thereafter informed the de facto complainant that the electricity service
connection would be provided on the following day.
3.13 . The de facto complainant then gave the pre-arranged signal.
P.W.10, accompanied by Usharani and the other members of the trap team,
entered the office. The de facto complainant and P.W.3 narrated the events that
had transpired. The phenolphthalein test was conducted, and the appellant's
hand wash was collected.
3.14 . When questioned about the tainted currency notes, the appellant
took the money from the table drawer and handed it over to the Trap Laying
Officer. The Executive Engineer (P.W.4), the appellant's superior officer, was
informed and subsequently arrived at the office. The Deputy Superintendent of
Police (P.W.12) was also informed and reached the scene.
3.15 . A recovery mahazar was prepared in the presence of the witnesses.
The appellant, P.W.3, P.W.5, and the other witnesses signed the mahazar, while
P.W.4 and P.W.12 signed its final page. The appellant was thereafter produced
before the jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody.
__________
Page6 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
3.16 . P.W.10 initially conducted the investigation, examined witnesses,
collected documents, and forwarded a requisition seeking sanction for
prosecution. Subsequently, upon her promotion and transfer, P.W.13, C.Rajesh,
took over the investigation, obtained the sanction order, and filed the charge
sheet.
3.17 . During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked
Exs.P1 to P21. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as D.W.1,
and five documents were marked.
3.18 . Upon completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and
sentenced the appellant as stated above.
4. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: -
4.1 . Mr.M.Aravind Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant submitted that the appellant had never demanded any bribe from
the de facto complainant. According to him, the appellant had initially rejected
the request for two independent electricity service connections because the
building lacked physical segregation between the ground floor and the first
floor, which were connected by an internal staircase.
__________
Page7 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
4.2 . It was further submitted that one electricity service connection had
already been approved in February 2015 without any demand for illegal
gratification. This circumstance, according to the learned Senior Counsel,
militated against the prosecution's allegation that the appellant had demanded a
bribe.
4.3 . The learned Senior Counsel contended that although the prosecution
alleged that the appellant had demanded a bribe from 23.05.2015 onwards, the
complaint was lodged only on 01.06.2015. Further, the prosecution alleged that
on 02.06.2015, the appellant reiterated his demand in the presence of the de
facto complainant and Ravichandran, the Head Constable, who had
accompanied him with a voice recorder. However, neither Ravichandran nor the
voice recorder recordings were produced before the Trial Court. The alleged
sum of Rs.5,000/- received on 02.06.2015 was also not seized.
4.4 . According to the learned Senior Counsel, the de facto complainant
had suppressed material facts concerning the eligibility of the building for a
second electricity service connection. The appellant had already recorded his
objection regarding the absence of physical segregation and the existence of an
internal staircase. The de facto complainant, being aware that the second
connection might not be sanctioned in the ordinary course, had lodged a false
complaint and arranged for the trap.
__________
Page8 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
4.5 . It was further contended that the respondent police had failed to
conduct a proper investigation into the background of the appellant and the
circumstances surrounding the complaint. Instead, they had hastily proceeded
against him and foisted a false case.
4.6 . The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that P.W.2 had
previously lodged similar complaints before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Wing against public servants, resulting in the arrest of six persons without an
adequate preliminary enquiry. According to the defence, this demonstrated that
the complainant had been using the Vigilance authorities to exert pressure on
public servants to obtain approvals that might otherwise not have been granted.
4.7 . It was also contended that the appellant had been serving as an
Assistant Executive Engineer in the office concerned for approximately seven
years and had discharged his duties diligently without any prior complaint. The
defence further alleged that the appellant's association with a labour union
affiliated with a political party then in opposition might have contributed to the
institution of the false case.
4.8 . The learned Senior Counsel questioned the credibility of P.W.3 and
the other official witness, Usharani, contending that they had been secured
__________
Page9 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
without proper summons or supporting records and were merely witnesses
willing to support the prosecution. He also argued that no proper preliminary
enquiry had been conducted in accordance with Rule 42(2) of the Vigilance
Manual.
4.9 . With regard to the telephone records, the learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the prosecution relied upon mobile numbers 9443720771, used
by the appellant, and 9363112222, used by the de facto complainant. Though
P.W.9 and P.W.11, the respective nodal officers of the telecommunications
service providers, had been examined, the ownership and actual usage of the
said numbers had not been satisfactorily established.
4.10 . It was submitted that P.W.9's evidence referred to the de facto
complainant's migration from one service provider to another, while P.W.11
produced the call details relating to the relevant numbers. However, Ex.P16 did
not conclusively establish the ownership and usage of the numbers. The Trial
Court had, therefore, erred in relying upon the telephone records.
4.11 . The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that P.W.1, the
sanctioning authority, had admitted that permanent physical segregation of the
portions of a building was necessary for the grant of two independent electricity
service connections. The de facto complainant, who was employed as a time-
__________
Page10 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
server, had suppressed material facts in the complaint, Ex.P3, and in the
application, Ex.P2, submitted in the name of his wife, Velumani.
4.12 . It was contended that P.W.14, the Assistant Executive Engineer at
the Peelamedu TANGEDCO Office, who held additional charge of the
Avarampalayam Office, and D.W.1, the subsequent Executive Engineer, had
confirmed the discrepancies in the application and the relevant departmental
records.
4.13 . The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that P.W.2 had admitted
that no inspection of the building had been conducted before the approval of the
estimate and collection of the estimated charges. He further submitted that
P.W.2 had stated that, at approximately 2.20 p.m. on the day of the trap, the
appellant was not at his seat and no one was present in the office, whereas
P.W.3 had given a contrary version by stating that two or three persons were
present.
4.14 . According to the defence, these contradictions supported the
possibility that the complainant had taken advantage of the appellant's absence
and placed the tainted currency notes in the table drawer without any demand or
acceptance by the appellant.
__________
Page11 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
4.15 . It was also submitted that, by the date of the trap, the estimate had
already been prepared and the requisite charges had been collected. The
remaining work, including installation of the meter and energisation of the
service connection, was to be completed by the concerned line inspector,
foreman, and other field staff, subject to the availability of meters. Hence, there
was no reason for the appellant to withhold the application for want of a bribe.
4.16 . Referring to the evidence of P.W.5, the Commercial Inspector, the
learned Senior Counsel submitted that P.W.5 had confirmed that the appellant
initialled the application on 01.06.2015 and forwarded it for processing. The
estimate was prepared based on the particulars furnished by P.W.8, the licensed
contractor, and a sum of Rs.16,450/- was collected from the de facto
complainant. Once the estimate had been prepared and the charges collected, the
subsequent work of providing the connection did not fall exclusively within the
appellant's domain.
4.17 . The defence also questioned the prosecution's failure to examine
any person from the restaurant opposite the electricity office to establish that the
appellant had been having food there when the complainant arrived.
4.18 . It was further submitted that P.W.3 and P.W.10 had admitted that,
until approximately 1.30 p.m. on 03.06.2015, they had not seen any file or
__________
Page12 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
departmental record indicating that the de facto complainant's application had
been withheld owing to non-payment of a bribe.
4.19 . The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that P.W.12 had not
examined Velumani, the owner of the building and the applicant for the
additional electricity service connection. P.W.4, the Executive Engineer, had
also not deposed to having witnessed the appellant demand or receive any bribe.
4.20 . It was further contended that P.W.5 had admitted that the estimated
amount had not been entered in certain relevant registers. P.W.4 and P.W.14
had stated that the property was required to be physically inspected before the
estimate could be prepared and collected. According to the defence, the estimate
had been collected without the requisite signature and approval of the appellant.
4.21 . The learned Senior Counsel also questioned the presence of P.W.5
during the recovery proceedings, contending that he was not present when the
alleged bribe amount was handed over. His subsequent participation in the
recovery mahazar was, therefore, relied upon as a circumstance casting doubt
on the fairness of the trap proceedings.
4.22 . The defence further relied upon the evidence of P.W.6, Assistant
Director of the Forensic Department, who had stated that the hand-wash
__________
Page13 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
samples were white in colour and had not turned pink, indicating the absence of
a positive phenolphthalein reaction.
4.23 . The learned Senior Counsel referred to the evidence of P.W.7
concerning the procedure for providing additional electricity service
connections and submitted that the actual work of providing the connection was
performed by the lineman and foreman.
4.24 . It was also argued that P.W.8, the licensed contractor, had not
supported the prosecution's case regarding the retention of Ex.P2 at the instance
of the appellant. Consequently, the foundational allegation that the application
had been deliberately withheld by the appellant and was not processed owing to
non-payment of a bribe had not been established.
4.25 . The learned Senior Counsel further contended that P.W.12, who
took over the investigation from P.W.10, had participated in the trap
proceedings and subsequently conducted a substantial part of the investigation.
This, according to the defence, compromised the independence of the
investigation and demonstrated prejudice against the appellant.
4.26 . It was also submitted that P.W.14, who assumed additional charge
of the appellant's post, had received charge memoranda and was compelled to
__________
Page14 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
process the de facto complainant's application on 04.06.2015. The defence
alleged that the connection was provided in haste, under pressure from the
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing, and without following the prescribed
departmental procedure, thereby, enabling the de facto complainant to achieve
his objective.
4.27 . In support of his defence, the appellant examined D.W.1, the
successor officer, who spoke about the prescribed procedure and the
irregularities in the processing of the application. The Trial Court, however,
failed to give due consideration to these circumstances and instead relied upon
witnesses whose evidence was said to be unreliable.
4.28 . The learned Senior Counsel additionally challenged the validity of
the sanction order, Ex.P1, contending that it had been issued without
independent application of mind or proper satisfaction. He also emphasised that
the voice recording, which formed the basis for proceeding with the
investigation, had not been produced before the Court and that there was no
material to establish that a proper background verification of the appellant had
been undertaken.
4.29 . The defence further contended that the electronic records and the
certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, produced
__________
Page15 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
through P.W.9 and P.W.11, did not comply with the statutory requirements and
ought not to have been relied upon.
4.30 . The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the Tamil Nadu
Electricity Distribution Code, which provides that an incomplete application for
the supply of electricity should be returned after indicating the defects. He
submitted that the appellant had acted in accordance with the prescribed
procedure and relied upon Exs.D4 and D5 in support of his contention.
4.31 . In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relied
upon the following decisions:-
(i) G.Sekar v. Inspector of Police , MANU/TN/1065/2014, in
Crl.A.No.161 of 2008, dated 04.07.2014, for the proposition that where tainted
money is planted by the de facto complainant without a demand for illegal
gratification, the prosecution case cannot be sustained merely on the basis of
recovery. It was argued that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 suggested that the
money had been placed in the appellant's drawer when he was absent.
(ii) Tr.V.R.Renga Raju v. State , MANU/TN/3872/2017, in
Crl.A.No.409 of 2017, dated 27.11.2017, for the proposition that where the
tainted money is found on a table or in a drawer without proof of its demand
and acceptance by the accused, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot automatically be invoked.
__________
Page16 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
(iii) M.H.Ansari and Others v. The State , MANU/TN/2087/2018, in
Crl.A.Nos.536 and 537 of 2010, dated 24.04.2018, for the proposition that non-
examination of the owner of the building, namely Velumani, in relation to the
application for the additional electricity service connection was fatal to the
prosecution.
(iv) N.Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu , MANU/SC/0051/2021, in
Crl.A.Nos.100 and 101 of 2021, dated 03.02.2021, in support of the submission
that the procedure prescribed under Rule 47(1) of the Vigilance Manual,
including recording the statement of the accused officer after the
phenolphthalein test, had not been followed.
(v) Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) ,
MANU/SC/0250/2023, in Crl.A.No.1669 of 2009, dated 17.03.2023, in support
of the contention that the prosecution must establish the foundational facts
relating to the demand for illegal gratification. The defence further submitted
that the delay between the alleged demand and the lodging of the complaint
rendered the prosecution case doubtful.
(vi) Soundarajan v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul , in Crl.A.No.1592 of 2022, dated
__________
Page17 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
17.04.2023, for the proposition that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification is essential to sustain a conviction under the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
4.32 . Without prejudice to the submissions on the merits, the learned
Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant had been diagnosed with Stage IV
non-small-cell lung cancer and was undergoing chemotherapy. It was therefore
requested that his serious medical condition also be taken into consideration.
5. Submissions on behalf of the Prosecution:-
5.1 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed a counter-affidavit
and submitted that the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses and marked the
relevant documentary and material evidence. The Trial Court had carefully
scrutinised the oral and documentary evidence and rendered a reasoned
judgment, which did not warrant interference by the appellate Court.
5.2 . It was submitted that P.W.1 was the competent authority to grant
sanction for prosecution and had issued the sanction order, Ex.P1. The appellant
had failed to establish any error, omission, or irregularity in the grant of
sanction.
__________
Page18 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
5.3 . In support of the validity of the sanction, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor relied upon Vineeth Narain and Others v. Union of India
and Another , reported in AIR 1998 SC 889 , and Gurucharan Singh and
Others v. State (Delhi Administration) , reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 ,
submitting that the requirement of sanction is intended to protect innocent
public servants and not to shield those who have committed offences.
5.4 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.2 had
lodged the complaint on 01.06.2015 and that P.W.10 had examined him and
undertaken the necessary preliminary verification. In accordance with the
principles laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and
Others , reported in AIR 2014 SC 187 , the complaint was examined before
further action was taken.
5.5 . It was further submitted that, on 02.06.2015, P.W.2 was sent with
Ravichandran, the Head Constable, and a voice recorder to meet the appellant.
During that meeting, the appellant reiterated his demand for illegal gratification,
accepted Rs.5,000/-, and directed the de facto complainant to pay the balance of
Rs.10,000/- on the following day.
5.6 . According to the prosecution, when the appellant was subsequently
questioned about the status of the de facto complainant's application, P.W.5
__________
Page19 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
stated that he had not received it. The appellant then contacted P.W.8, the
licensed contractor, who handed over the application to P.W.5. P.W.5 prepared
the estimate for Rs.16,450/-, which was paid by the de facto complainant.
5.7 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that
P.W.10 verified the complaint and proceeded with the trap arrangements. On
03.06.2015, the pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of P.W.3
and Usharani, and the procedure relating to the phenolphthalein test was
explained and documented in the entrustment mahazar.
5.8 . The prosecution version was that, after confirming the appellant's
availability, P.W.2 proceeded to the office accompanied by P.W.3. As the
appellant was not initially present at his seat, the de facto complainant contacted
him by mobile phone and was informed that he was at the restaurant opposite
the office. P.W.2 and P.W.3 waited for the appellant, after which all three
entered the office together.
5.9 . It was submitted that the appellant reiterated his demand for the
balance amount of Rs.10,000/-, received the tainted currency notes from P.W.2,
counted them, and kept them in the drawer of his table. Upon receipt of the pre-
arranged signal, P.W.10 and the trap team entered the office and conducted the
post-trap proceedings.
__________
Page20 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
5.10 . According to the prosecution, the phenolphthalein test was
conducted, the hand-wash samples were collected, and the tainted currency
notes were recovered from the drawer and handed over by the appellant. The
currency notes were counted and verified against the particulars recorded in the
entrustment mahazar, Ex.P5.
5.11 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that
P.W.4, the Executive Engineer, and P.W.12, the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, were informed and subsequently arrived at the office. The recovery
mahazar, Ex.P10, was prepared in the presence of the witnesses, and the
relevant registers and documents, including Exs.P6 to P9, were seized.
5.12 . The prosecution also relied upon the estimate, Ex.P11, the telephone
records and related documents produced through P.W.9 and P.W.11, and the
relevant certificates concerning electronic evidence. Further documents relating
to the service connections, departmental proceedings, and registers were
obtained from P.W.14 and marked during the trial.
5.13 . It was submitted that P.W.8, although he had not fully supported the
prosecution, had confirmed the existence of the application, the preparation of
the estimate, and the handing over of the application to P.W.5. His evidence
was corroborated by P.W.5.
__________
Page21 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
5.14 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defence
had examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.D1 to D5. However, the documents relied
upon by the defence did not discredit the prosecution evidence. The Trial Court
had considered the defence contentions and the relevant exhibits and had given
cogent reasons for accepting the prosecution case.
5.15 . The learned Additional Public Prosecutor therefore prayed that the
Criminal Appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Trial Court be confirmed.
6. Discussion and Findings:-
6.1 . This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. The oral and documentary evidence
available on record has also been carefully examined.
6.2 . The primary question that arises for consideration is whether the
prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant
demanded and accepted illegal gratification from P.W.2 and whether the
conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court warrant interference.
__________
Page22 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
6.3 . The prosecution case is that the wife of P.W.2, Velumani, had
constructed a house consisting of a ground floor and a first floor, and that the
two portions had been separately assessed by the Coimbatore Corporation.
P.W.2 had accordingly sought two independent electricity service connections.
6.4 . During February 2015, one service connection was processed and
energised. In respect of the second connection, the appellant raised an objection
on the ground that the two portions were not physically segregated and were
connected by an internal staircase. According to the de facto complainant, the
appellant initially advised him to submit the second application at a later date
and subsequently demanded Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification for providing the
connection.
6.5 . The evidence of P.W.2 indicates that, on 23.05.2015, he contacted
the appellant over the mobile phone regarding the second service connection
and that the appellant demanded Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, on 01.06.2015, P.W.2
visited the appellant's office and enquired about the status of the application.
6.6 . At that time, the appellant contacted P.W.5, the Commercial
Inspector, and enquired about the application. P.W.5 informed him that the
application had not reached him. The appellant then contacted P.W.8, the
__________
Page23 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
licensed contractor, who handed over the application along with the relevant
particulars to P.W.5.
6.7 . The appellant initialled the application and forwarded it for
processing. P.W.5 thereafter prepared the estimate, and the de facto complainant
was required to pay Rs.16,450/- towards the estimated charges. Since P.W.5
was occupied with other work, the de facto complainant was asked to collect the
receipt later. The de facto complainant subsequently lodged the complaint,
Ex.P3, stating that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification in
connection with the second service connection.
6.8 . It is the further case of prosecution that, on 02.06.2015, P.W.2 met
the appellant in the presence of Ravichandran, the Head Constable, and that the
appellant reiterated his demand. According to P.W.2, the appellant accepted
Rs.5,000/- and demanded that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- be paid on the
following day. P.W.2 thereafter informed P.W.10 of the events, following
which the trap proceedings were arranged.
6.9 . On 03.06.2015, the de facto complainant, accompanied by P.W.3,
proceeded to the appellant's office after the pre-trap formalities had been
completed. Since the appellant was initially absent from his seat, P.W.2
contacted him over the mobile phone. The appellant informed him that he was
__________
Page24 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
at the restaurant opposite the electricity office. P.W.2 and P.W.3 waited for the
appellant, and thereafter, all three entered the office.
6.10 . The prosecution version, supported by the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3, is that the appellant reiterated his demand for the balance amount of
Rs.10,000/-. P.W.2 handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant, who
received them, counted them with both hands, and kept them in the drawer of
his table on the right-hand side. P.W.2 then gave the pre-arranged signal.
6.11 . Upon receiving the signal, P.W.10 and the other members of the
trap team entered the office. P.W.2 and P.W.3 informed them of the events that
had transpired. The post-trap proceedings were then conducted, and the tainted
currency notes were recovered from the drawer.
6.12 . The prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5,
and P.W.10 to establish the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe
amount. The evidence of P.W.5 is particularly relevant to the circumstances in
which the de facto complainant's application was processed and the estimate
was prepared.
6.13 . The departmental records, including the Domestic Application
Register, Demand Register, Service Connection Labour Register, and
Attendance Register, marked as Exs.P6 to P9, together with the estimate marked
__________
Page25 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
as Ex.P11, were relied upon to establish the progress of the application and the
appellant's involvement in the process.
6.14 . The records indicate that the appellant had raised an objection to the
second service connection on the ground that there was no physical segregation
between the ground floor and the first floor and that an internal staircase
connected the two portions. The de facto complainant, on the other hand,
maintained that the internal staircase was merely an internal arrangement that
could be permanently closed and that an external staircase provided separate
access to the first floor. He further relied upon the separate municipal
assessments in support of his request for two independent service connections.
6.15 . The evidence further indicates that, notwithstanding the objection
concerning physical segregation, the application was subsequently forwarded
for processing, the estimate was prepared, and the estimated charges were
collected. P.W.5 has spoken to the preparation of the estimate and the
processing of the application, and his evidence finds corroboration in the
relevant departmental records.
6.16 . The appellant relies upon Exs.D4 and D5 to contend that the
application was defective and that the second service connection could not be
sanctioned without compliance with the prescribed requirements. However,
__________
Page26 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
these documents have to be considered alongside the other departmental records
and the oral evidence concerning the actual processing of the application.
6.17 . The fact that the application was processed and the estimated
charges were collected does not, by itself, establish the commission of an
offence. Nevertheless, the manner in which the application was dealt with, when
considered together with the evidence concerning the alleged demand for illegal
gratification, constitutes a relevant circumstance in assessing the prosecution
case.
6.18 . The appellant has also contended that the application was not
withheld by him and that P.W.8, the licensed contractor, had retained it. Though
P.W.8 did not fully support the prosecution, he confirmed the existence of the
application, the preparation of the estimate, and the handing over of the
application to P.W.5. P.W.5's evidence corroborates these aspects.
6.19 . The appellant has further questioned the credibility of P.W.2 and
P.W.3, contending that their evidence contains material contradictions regarding
the appellant's presence in the office and the circumstances in which the money
was handed over. The evidence of these witnesses must, therefore, be assessed
in conjunction with the testimony of P.W.5, the recovery mahazar, and the other
contemporaneous records.
__________
Page27 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
6.20 . With regard to the telephone records, the prosecution relies upon the
evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.11 and the documents marked as Exs.P13 and P16.
The defence has challenged the evidentiary value of these records, particularly,
on the ground that the ownership and actual use of the relevant telephone
numbers have not been conclusively established and that the statutory
requirements governing electronic evidence have not been satisfied.
6.21 . The evidentiary value of the telephone records must be assessed in
accordance with the applicable statutory requirements. At the same time, the
prosecution case concerning demand and acceptance must be considered on the
basis of the entire body of admissible evidence, including the direct testimony
of the witnesses and the contemporaneous documentary evidence.
6.22 . The appellant has also challenged the validity of the sanction order,
Ex.P1, on the ground that the sanctioning authority did not independently apply
its mind to the materials placed before it. The prosecution, on the other hand,
relies upon the evidence of P.W.1 to establish that the sanction was granted by
the competent authority.
6.23 . The validity of the sanction must be determined by examining the
evidence of the sanctioning authority and the materials considered before the
__________
Page28 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
order was issued. The mere fact that the appellant disputes the sanction does
not, by itself, render it invalid; equally, the grant of sanction cannot dispense
with the prosecution's obligation to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
6.24 . The appellant has also relied upon the evidence of D.W.1 and the
departmental documents marked on the defence side to demonstrate alleged
irregularities in the processing of the application and the grant of the second
service connection. These circumstances have to be considered in the context of
the defence that the complaint was motivated and that the trap was staged.
6.25 . The defence has further relied upon the non-examination of
Ravichandran, the absence of the voice recording, and the failure to seize the
alleged amount of Rs.5,000/- said to have been received on 02.06.2015. These
omissions have been relied upon to contend that the prosecution has withheld
material evidence.
6.26 . The appellant has also questioned the phenolphthalein test and
relied upon the evidence of P.W.6 concerning the colour of the hand-wash
samples. The significance of this evidence must be considered along with the
other evidence concerning the recovery and the circumstances in which the
tainted currency notes were received and handled.
__________
Page29 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
6.27 . The prosecution, however, maintains that the evidence of P.W.2 and
P.W.3 establishes the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount on
03.06.2015 and that the recovery proceedings corroborate their testimony. It
further contends that the departmental records establish the appellant's
involvement in processing the application.
6.28 . In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of
recovery of tainted currency, by itself, is not sufficient to establish guilt where
the essential foundational facts concerning demand and acceptance remain
unproved. The Court must examine the evidence as a whole and determine
whether the prosecution has established the relevant ingredients of the offences
charged beyond reasonable doubt.
6.29 . In the present case, the Trial Court considered the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, the departmental records, the recovery proceedings, and
the defence documents. In particular, paragraphs 75 to 87 of the judgment
contain its discussion of the evidence and the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution.
6.30 . The appellant's primary contention is that the prosecution evidence
is unreliable and that the Trial Court failed to give due consideration to the
inconsistencies and omissions pointed out by the defence. The prosecution, on
__________
Page30 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
the other hand, submits that the evidence of the material witnesses is consistent
on the essential aspects of the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe
amount.
6.31 . The question is whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court
suffer from any material error in the appreciation of evidence or whether the
prosecution has established the essential ingredients of the offences beyond
reasonable doubt. The Court must also consider whether the statutory
presumption, where applicable, can be invoked in the light of the foundational
facts proved by the prosecution.
6.32 . Upon examining the materials placed on record, the Trial Court's
findings must be assessed in the light of the evidence concerning the demand,
the acceptance of the tainted currency notes, the recovery proceedings, and the
documentary evidence relating to the de facto complainant's application.
7. Conclusion :-
7.1 . The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, concluded that the prosecution had established the charges against the
appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It accordingly convicted and sentenced the
appellant as stated above.
__________
Page31 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
7.2 . Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides
and the materials available on record, this Court finds no sufficient ground to
interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial
Court.
7.3 . Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 10.08.2018, passed by the Trial Court in
Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2017 is confirmed. The bail bonds executed by the appellant
shall stand cancelled. The learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, Coimbatore, is directed to issue warrant to secure
the appellant, to forward him to prison to undergo remaining period of sentence.
The period of detention already undergone by the appellant is set off under
Section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) / 428 of
Code of Criminal Procedure.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
smn2 / VV2
To
1.The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
Coimbatore,
__________
Page32 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Coimbatore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
__________
Page33 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )

CRL A No.506 of 2018
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
smn2 / VV2
CRL A No.506 of 2018
16-10-2026
__________
Page34 of 34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:33 pm )