The Additional Superintendent Of Police, CBI vs G.Elangovan

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

This criminal appeal was filed by the CBI challenging an acquittal judgment passed by the II Additional District Judge for CBI Cases, Madurai, in C.C.No.1 of 2007 dated 06.06.2016, wherein four accused — comprising Superintendents and a contingent employee of the Office of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Trichy — were acquitted of charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy to demand and accept illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- from the Managing Partner of Balaji Steel, Pudukottai, as a reward for reducing a penalty imposed in an appellate order. A trap was laid by CBI officers using electronic recording equipment and phenolphthalein-tested currency, and all four accused tested positive for handling tainted notes.

The CBI contended that the demand was conclusively proved through the testimony of the complainant (P.W.10) and corroborated by electronic evidence (Ex.C1), which was admitted by consent of both parties. It was further submitted that the trial court's findings were perverse, that the court had relied upon extraneous and irrelevant material to disbelieve the cogent testimony of P.W.10 and P.W.12, and that once demand and recovery were proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act ought to have been drawn against the accused, warranting conviction.

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, after hearing arguments from the Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and counsel for all respondents, examined whether the trial court's acquittal was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence including the trap proceedings, the electronic recording, the phenolphthalein test results, and the mahazar witnesses' testimony. The judgment addresses the scope of appellate interference in acquittal cases and the evidentiary requirements for proving demand, acceptance, and recovery under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Catchwords: Prevention of Corruption Act · illegal gratification · trap case · phenolphthalein test · electronic evidence · demand and acceptance · statutory presumption · Section 20 Prevention of Corruption Act · acquittal appeal · CBI · perverse findings · appellate interference · corruption by public servant · Customs officer · bribery