K.MANIAN, M.60 YEARS vs THE STATE REP BY

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MADRAS
Reserved on : 12.06.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.A.No.260 of 2018
CNR: {HCMA010240192018}
K.Manian ... Appellant / Accused

Vs.
State Rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
Coimbatore District
(Crime No.15 of 2008/AC/CB) ... Respondent / Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.,
to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the
appellant in Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2011 on 28.03.2018 by the learned
Special Judge, Special Court for cases under Prevention of
Corruption Act, Coimbatore and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Saravanan
For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Additional Public Prosecutor
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 28.03.2018,
in Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2011, on the file of the learned Special Judge,
Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act,
Coimbatore (‘the trial Court’), by which the appellant, sole accused,
was found guilty of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2)
read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(‘the Act’). For the offence under Section 7, he was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four
months. For the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d), he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for four months. The sentences being ordered to run
concurrently
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(a) The defacto complainant/PW.2 was working as a sales man
at Tata Telecom Service. He attended an interview conducted by
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited and he was selected
for the post of salesman. In order to join the new post he was asked
to produce a physical fitness certificate. Hence on 12.08.2008 he
went to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital and approached the
appellant /record Clerk in the Residential Medical Officer's office.
2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
The appellant instructed him to purchase the application form for
obtaining physical fitness certificate.
(b) Thereafter, the appellant took him to the Duty doctor/PW.4,
who had examined PW.2, filled up the fitness certificate form and
directed the appellant to affix the official seal. However, the appellant
had not handed over the fitness certificate but demanded a sum of
Rs.150/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for
issuance of certificate. The defacto complainant/PW.2 pleaded that
he is in financially poor and had no money to pay the illegal
gratification, however the appellant insisted for money. The defacto
complainant / PW.2 informed that he will bring the money on the next
day and left the hospital.
(c) Thereafter the defacto complainant/PW.2 felt ashamed that
being a educated person and even for getting a physical fitness
certificate he has to pay illegal gratification. Unwilling to pay the
amount the defacto complainant/PW.2 went to the office of the
Vigilance and Anti Corruption on the next day on 13.08.2008 at 10.30
am and met Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption/P.W.9
and lodged the complaint /Ex.P.3.
(d) The Inspector of Police/ PW.9 enquired the defacto
complainant and having found the complaint to be genuine,
thereafter he summoned two official witnesses namely
3
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
PW.3/Nalliappan who was working as a Personal Assistant to Regional
Transport Officer and Nagarajan who was working as a Assistant in
Labour Welfare Department. Thereafter at about 11.30 hrs he has
registered the First Information Report. The official witnesses
interacted with the defacto complainant cleared their doubts and
thereafter entrustment mahazhar was prepared between 13.15
-14.20hrs. The pre trap proceedings were explained.
(e) The trap team went to the Government Hospital. P.W.2 was
instructed that the tainted money should he handed over to the
appellant if he demanded the same. PW.3 was asked to over hear
and watch the conversation between the appellant and PW.2 and if
the appellant received the bribe amount PW.2 was advised to come
out and give the pre-arranged signal. The Trap Laying Officer/PW.9
along with other official witness entered the office enquired PW.2
and PW.3. They were informed that the appellant had demanded the
illegal gratification.
(f) PW.2 handed over three fifty notes (Rs.150/-) to the appellant
and the appellant received money, counted the notes with both his
hands, retained two notes in his pocket and since PW.2 informed that
he is facing financial difficulty one fifty rupee note was handed over
to the defacto complainant. Thereafter the appellant handed over the
physical fitness certificate /Ex.P.6 to the defacto complainant(PW2)
4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
(g) The Trap Laying Officer/ PW.9 summoned PW.5
Administrative officer of the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital
and in presence of PW.3 and PW. 5 and other official witness recovery
proceedings was initiated, hand wash of the appellant turned pink
and the bribe amount/M.O.1 was handed over by the appellant and
thereafter PW.2 who was asked to stand outside was asked to come
inside and he handed over the fitness certificate/Ex.P.6 and Rs.50/-
note which he had received from the appellant. The Rs.50/-note was
tallied with the entrustment mahazhar and Rs.50/- note was handed
over back to PW./2.
(h) Thereafter on completion of trap proceedings the appellant
was arrested, his house was searched and search report was marked
as Ex.P8. The appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial
custody. Thereafter PW.9 handed over the investigation to PW.10
who took up the investigation, recorded the statements of witness
and again examined defacto complainant/PW.2 and other official
witnesses and PW.4 civil surgeon who issued the fitness certificate
and recorded his statements.
(i) The defacto complainant had called the appellant on
30.08.2008 from his mobile number wherein the demand was again
reiterated. Hence the call details records of the appellant and
PW..2/defacto complainant were collected from the aircel and airtel
service providers. P.W.6/Nodal Officer of Airtel and P.W.8/Nodal
5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
Officer of Aircel gave the call details records/Ex.P.9 and 11. The
hand wash and shirt collected were sent for forensic examination .
The attendance register/Ex.P.14 collected and thereafter on
conclusion of investigation for seeking sanction of prosecution the
investigation report was submitted before PW.1.
(j)After sanction for prosecution accorded by the Dean (I/c),
Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore under Section
19(1)(c) of the PC Act, by proceedings dated 20.01.2010 (Ex.P.2) final
report filed and taken on file as Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2011. Charges
under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)d) r/w. 13(2) of the PC Act framed.
(k) During trial on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW10
were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 and M.O.1 to M.O.7 were marked.
When the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.. No document
was marked on the side of the defence. On the side of the appellant
no witnesses were examined and no document was marked. On the
above evidence the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant
as stated above.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that in this case the defacto complainant /PW.2 had
suppressed the vital facts and given a one sided version in his
complaint. PW.9/Trap Laying Officer without proper verification of
6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
the complaint had proceeded with the investigation with the sole
intention of demonstrating the trap has been laid successfully. In
this case in the complaint /Ex.P.3, the defacto complainant/PW.2 had
mention about his visit to the Government Hospital on 12.08.2008
filling up the application form and submitting the same, however he
had suppressed the vital fact that on 12.08.2008 PW.4 had examined
him, completed the procedure for issuance of physical fitness
certificate.
3.1. Further in the complaint it has been projected on the same
day the appellant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.150/-
without disclosing the requirement to pay the fee for obtaining
certificate. In this case PW.1/Sanction authority had marked Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 in it clearly recorded as per G.O.(2D) No.10, Health and
Family Welfare Department dated 01.02.1993 a fee of Rs.20/- was
prescribed for obtaining a physical fitness certificate from an
Assistant Surgeon and a fee of Rs.50/- for obtaining the same from a
Civil Surgeon. PW.4 was the Civil surgeon and the fee prescribed for
him for issuance of fitness certificate is Rs. 50/-. In this case PW.2
admitted that he has not paid any charges. PW.4/Civil surgeon who
had examined the defacto complainant confirms that the charges for
issuance of certificate was neither paid nor collected. The consistent
stand of the appellant is that the charges was only collected and not
the illegal gratification.
7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
3.2. PW.3 the accompanying official witness has confirms that
the defacto complainant has not stated anything with regard to the
payment of charges he had only stated that the appellant had
demanded illegal gratification of Rs.150/-. Even in the complaint and
the entrustment mahazhar /Ex.P.7.recovery mahazhar /Ex.P.5 it is
recorded that the appellant asked for money and not made any
demand of illegal gratification. This is further confirmed by the
evidence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5. The appellant when he was
arrested he has given his explanation to the PW.9/TLO confirms that
it was only the charges for issuance of fitness certificate amount was
collected and not the illegal gratification. P.W5 and P.W.9 confirms
that the appellant had given explanation during the trap even at the
first instance. PW.9 though admits but not recorded the explanation
given by the appellant. Thus in this case the vigilance manual
procedures not followed.
3.3. He further submitted that in this case from the
entrustment mahazhar and the evidence of PW.2 and PW. 9, it is seen
that the during pre trap proceedings and drawing of Ex.P.5 it is the
Gr.I Constable Palaniraj who had handled the trap amount of three
50 Rupees note and who had demonstrated the pre trap
proceedings and he is the person who smeared the phenolphthalein
powder and thereafter again handled M.O.1 and thereafter dipped his
fingers in the sodium carbonate solution. This demonstration
8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
procedure in unheard off. It is normally the one of the official
independent witness who handles the pre trap procedures. This
procedures is to show the neutrality and transparency in the trap
proceedings. In this case it is the police constable who handled the
pre trap proceedings and the amount. He further submitted that in
this case the PW.4 confirms that on 12.08.2008 fitness certificate
procedure already completed and no fee paid by the defaco
complainant/PW.2.
3.4. From Ex.P.1 and the evidence of PW.1 the Dean of
Coimbatore Medical College he confirms that the request physical
fitness certificate will considered and issued and fee to be collected.
It is proved by the appellant that the fees for issuance of physical
fitness certificate not paid by PW2. The appellant asked for this
amount which has been projected as though it is a demand for bribe
amount. Further it is strange to note that the appellant received
three fifty rupees note from the decoy/PW2 and the appellant
returned back one fifty rupees not to the decoy and later it was
verified and recorded in Ex.P.7/recovery mahazhar. In all fairness
once it is confirmed that PW.2/decoy had handled and retained one of
the three phenolphthalein smeared notes then the Trap Laying
Officer ought to have conducted phenolphthalein test by collecting
hand wash of the defacto complainant and ought to have seized that
one fifty rupees note. In this case no such steps taken. The evidence
of PW.2/decoy and PW.3/accompanying witness confirms that the
9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
appellant had not demanded any bribe amount. Ex.P.6 /fitness
certificate already made ready on 12.08.2008 and on 13.08.2008
after receipt of charges appellant handed over the fitness certificate
to PW.2. Hence it is not the case that the appellant had demanded
bribe amount for a official act.
3.5. In this case it is admitted fact that PW/.4 civil surgeon or
any doctor of the hospital can only give fitness certificate. The
appellant a record clerk is only to maintain files in the office and he
has no authority to issue fitness certificate. This being the case,
projecting the appellant had demanded bribe amount to do an
official work and collected the same falls flat. He further submitted
that the yet another circumstance is that the PW.2 had called the
appellant from his mobile phone 9976775952 on 13.08.2008 about
10.56 a.m., and spoken 28 seconds at about 11.01 for 7 seconds and
11.12.a.m., for 64seconds to project as though there was demand
made. In this case it is admitted by PW.2 that PW.2 had come to the
office at 10.30am.,lodged a complaint and registered the First
Information Report at about 11.30 a.m., He further admits that from
10.30.am., till the trap team leaving the vigilance office PW.2 was
present in the office, confirming that all three calls made only to
create evidence as though there was demand. All the three calls are
incoming calls from PW.2 , Added to it PW.6 and 8 are the nodal
officers from Airtel and Aircel who had issued Exps.9 and 11 call
details records but those documents were not accompanied by the
10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
requisite certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act,
certificate hence on the factual aspect and legal aspect is
inadmissible.,
3.6. The learned counsel had submitted that from the evidence
of PW.2 it is clear that PW2 has suppressed vital facts and projected
the fee to be paid for getting fitness certificates projected it is a
demand of bribe and not disclosed the true facts to the Trap Laying
Officer, P.W9. PW.9/Trap Laying Officer failed to conduct proper
background check prior to registration of the First Information
Report, PW.9 and in a hasty manner registered First Information
Report and had focussed in success of the trap. From the evidence of
PW.2,3 and Ex.P.5 and Ex.P7 there was no demand of any bribe
amount and the request made by the appellant is for collection of
charges and fee for the fitness certificate, which is confirmed by
PW./1 and Ex.P.1. Ex.P.4 the appellant has given an explanation that
it was only a fee for issuance of certificate and this is confirmed by
the evidence of PW.5 which is admitted by PW.9/TLO. Thus in this
case the sine qua non that there must be bribe demand, acceptance
and recovery. In this case there is no demand of any bribe which
clearly proved by the evidence of witnesses and from the material
produced. Thus the conviction of the trial Court is not sustainable
3.7. Further the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act (as it
stood at the time of the occurrence in June 2008) requires proof that
11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
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.
3.8.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
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
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.P2, and the allegations
in the complaint, are not substantive evidence. The learned Special
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that The
defacto complainant/P.W.2, who was selected for the post of salesman
in Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited, approached the
appellant, a Record Clerk at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, on
12.08.2008 for obtaining a physical fitness certificate. Though P.W.4,
the duty doctor, examined him and given the certificate, the appellant
allegedly demanded Rs.150/- as illegal gratification for issuing the
same. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W.2 lodged a complaint/Ex.P.3
before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department on 13.08.2008.
Based on the complaint, P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, registered the
First Information Report and arranged a trap in the presence of
official witnesses. During the trap proceedings, P.W.2 handed over
three Rs.50/- currency notes to the appellant. The appellant allegedly
retained two notes, returned one note to P.W.2 and handed over the
physical fitness certificate/Ex.P.6. The appellant's hand wash turned
pink, and the tainted currency notes recovered during the trap
recovery proceedings. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested, and
further investigation was conducted by P.W.10. The call detail
records, forensic materials and attendance register were collected
during the investigation.
4.1. In this case P.W2 is the decoy. Pw.3 is the accompanying
witness, their evidence are natural. The trap amount /M.O.1 was
seized from the appellant which is confirmed the forensic report.
The evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is corroborated. PW.5 administrative
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
officer was present during the entire recovery proceedings, arrest
and recovery. In this case on completion of investigation charge
sheet was made ready and submitted before PW.1 who independently
applied his mind and gave his sanction for prosecution/Ex.P.2. The
chain of events well established by examination of witness
PW.2,3,4,5 and 9. The trial Court on the evidence and materials found
the appellant had demanded, received and accepted the bribe
amount. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, hence he
seeks for dismissal of appeal.
5. The Court heard the submissions made by the learned
counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials on
record.
6. It is seen that in this case PW.2 is the defacto complainant,
PW3 is the accompanying witness. P.W.2 for getting medical fitness
certificate/Ex.P.6 had gone to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore
and met the appellant and requested for certificate. He had also
submitted an application form and thereafter the appellant had took
him to PW.4, who had examined the defacto complainant and signed
the fitness certificate/Ex.P.6 directed the appellant to affix the seal
and the same was done. Thereafter the appellant had requested for
payment of fees for the medical certificate. The PW.2 informed that
on the next day he would pay the money and collect the certificate.
Unwilling to pay the amount, on the next day i.e.,13.08.2008 he had
15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
gone to the office of Vigilance and Anti Corruption and lodged a
complaint.,
7. On perusal of complaint Ex.P.3 it is seen that the complaint is
silent about the fitness certificate made ready and not issued,,
nowhere in the complaint PW.2 had referred about payment of fee
and charges. The payment of charges is legal one which is confirmed
by P.W.1 and Ex.P.1. PW.1 also confirms the same. In this case the
non payment of charges not whispered by PW.2 in his complaint
either to P.W.3 or other official witness or to P.W9 /TLO. PW.3
confirms that PW.2 not stated anything about fee. PW.9 confirms
that he has not conducted any investigation with regard to the
payment of charge and fee. Thus the investigation s proceed on one
sided version given by PW.2 on assumption and presumption that
there was demand of illegal gratification by the appellant.
8. Further from the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and entrustment
mahazhar and recovery mahazhar it is clearly recorded that the
appellant not demanded any amount as illegal gratification. He had
asked money for the charges to be paid and nothing as illegal
gratification. It is also strange to see that in this case the appellant is
said to have received Rs.150/- and out of it Rs.50/- was handed back
to the defacto complainant, which is again a unusual factor. The
person who is so enticed in demanding a bribe amount would never
hand over the amount back.
16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
9. Further in this case immediately after trap the appellant had
given explanation that the amount collected is for the charges for
issuance of fitness certificate and not the bribe amount. Strangely
PW.2 and PW.3 denies such explanation but PW.5/administrative
officer and PW.9/TLO admit that the appellant had given such
explanation that the amount received is only for issuance of fitness
certificate and not a bribe.
10. In this case PW.9/TLO admits that except for complaint
/Ex.P.3 no other supporting documents produced by the PW.2 . PW.2
and 3 confirms the same, In all fairness PW.9/Trap Laying Officer
prior to registration of the case and laying a trap should have asked
for supporting documents to confirm the allegation and thereafter he
should have verified whether there was any demand of bribe.. The
PW.9/Trap Laying Officer admits that he has not produced any
materials to show that there was background check made about the
appellant.
11. In this case yet another strange factor is that the Gr.I
Constable of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department had
done in the demonstration process and he is the person who handled
the trap amount and demonstrated the pre trap proceedings.
Neutrality lost against the established procedure.
17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
12. An another attempt has been made to sum out implicated
that there was prior demand of bribe by the appellant and PW.6 and
PW,8 the service provider of aircel and airtel and ExP.s9 and 11
marked. It is seen that it is only an incoming call and on 13.08.2008
about 10.56 a.m., spoken 28 seconds at about 11.01 for 7 seconds
and 11.12.a.m., for 64seconds to project as though there was
demand made. Admittedly during that time the defacto complainant
was in the office of V&DC which is confirmed by PW.9 /TLO. This
calls were generated to create records from the V&DC office. Added
to it PW.9 and P.W.11 are without 65(B) certificate and it no
evidentiary value. In this case admittedly demand of bribe which is
sine qua non is not proved.
13. Demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non of an
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d). Mere possession or recovery
of tainted currency, without proof of demand and voluntary
acceptance, does not constitute the offence and both must be proved,
whether by direct or circumstantial evidence, before presumption
under Section 20 can be raised. The presumption is rebuttable, and
the accused need only to displace it by preponderance of
probabilities, which he may do by cross-examination, by the
prosecution's own material, or by defence evidence, and not
necessarily by leading evidence. Section 20 by its terms applies to
offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(a) and (b); it does not
18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )

CRL A.No.260 of 2018
extend to Section 13(1)(d). Further the appellant has probabilized
defence by cross examination of witnesses and from the materials
available.
14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, and the
Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.09.2019, passed by
the learned Special Judge, Special Court for Prevention of Corruption
Act Cases, Villupuram, in Spl.C.C.No.57 of 2011, is set aside. The
appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges under Section 7 and
Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant
shall be refunded to him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the
appellant shall stand cancelled.
16.10.2026
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
mpk
To
1. The Special Court for cases under Prevention
of Corruption Act, Coimbatore
2. The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
Coimbatore District.
3. The 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.260 of 2018
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
mpk
Pre-Deliver Judgment made in
CRL.A.No.260 of 2018
16.10.2026
20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/10/2026 04:39:32 pm )