Madras HC Sets Aside Panchayat President’s Corruption Conviction, Finds ₹5,000 Payment Was Auction Balance, Not Bribe

The appellant, President of Nenjathur Village Panchayat, was convicted by the Special Court under Sections 409, 466, 467, 471 and 201 IPC and Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that, after a public auction of materials from a demolished school building, the appellant retained part of the sale proceeds and later demanded and accepted ₹5,000 from the complainant as a bribe to issue a receipt and permit collection of the remaining materials.

The appellant maintained that the ₹5,000 received on 25 October 2000 was the unpaid balance of the auction price, not illegal gratification, and relied on evidence of prior disputes with the complainant.

The High Court heard the appeal against conviction and sentence.

The Court considered Section 405 IPC, which defines criminal breach of trust as the dishonest misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of entrusted property—or property over which the accused has dominion—in violation of law or a legal obligation; Section 409 IPC applies that offence to specified persons, including public servants.

The charges also invoked Sections 466, 467, 471 and 201 IPC concerning forgery of specified records or valuable security, use of a forged document as genuine, and causing evidence to disappear or screening an offender.

The Prevention of Corruption Act charges were under Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), concerning criminal misconduct by a public servant.

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a separate test for these offences; it assesses whether the prosecution evidence proved the alleged conduct.

The Court found that the complainant had agreed in an enquiry before PW10 to pay the outstanding ₹5,000 and collect a receipt, and that PW18 also testified that the complainant admitted owing that balance.

The receipt was issued and the amount was credited to the Panchayat account; the Court therefore treated the trap payment as the balance auction price, not a bribe.

It also considered the history of disputes between the parties and the complainant’s prior complaints as relevant to the reliability of the prosecution case.

The prosecution did not examine the Panchayat Secretary, who was responsible for receipts and maintaining relevant records, or establish through the other signatories that the resolution-book entry had been interpolated by the appellant.

In those circumstances, the Court held that the evidence did not safely establish misappropriation, forgery, or the other charged offences.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed that the appellant’s bail bond be cancelled and any fine paid be refunded.