The Additional Superintendent Of Police, CBI:ACB:Chennai vs G.Elangovan

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

This is a criminal appeal filed by the CBI challenging the acquittal judgment passed by the learned II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.1 of 2007 dated 06.06.2016. The respondents, who were ranked as A1 to A4 before the trial court, were alleged to have conspired to demand and accept illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from the Managing Partner of Balaji Steel, Pudukottai, as a reward for having an appellate order revised to reduce a penalty from Rs.4,87,292 to Rs.1,00,000. The CBI arranged a trap, employed an electronic recorder and conducted phenolphthalein tests, with the taint found successively on the hands of A1, A2, A3, and A4, leading to their arrest.

The CBI contended that the trial court's findings were perverse, that the demand was clearly established through the testimony of PW10 and corroborated by electronic evidence (Ex.C1) marked with consent of both parties, and that once demand and recovery were proved, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was mandatorily triggered but was not properly considered by the trial judge. The prosecution urged that the accused ought to have been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by K.K.Ramakrishnan J., took up the appeal and, after reserving it on 31.07.2024 and pronouncing it on 21.04.2025, considered the rival contentions regarding the validity of the acquittal and the adequacy of evidence relating to demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe amount.

Catchwords: Prevention of Corruption Act · illegal gratification · trap case · phenolphthalein test · electronic recorder · demand and acceptance · presumption under Section 20 · acquittal appeal · CBI · customs officer · conspiracy · bribe