Section 20(1) in The Prevention Of Corruption Act

Section 20(1) in The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988

(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) or sub- section (1) of section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Investigating Officer, took up further investigation and After examination of the other witnesses and on completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused on 14.08.1995 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

asked earlier and the said amount cannot be construed to be the amount towards illegal gratification as it is categorically stated by P.W.3 that it is only meant for repayment of the loan and as such, from the evidence of P.W.2, it cannot be stated that the accused asked only the amount towards illegal gratification. Therefore, the prosecution has also miserably failed to prove the alleged demand made event at the time of trap. (c) The prosecution having failed to prove the alleged demand made by the accused, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1988 cannot be raised.

The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as this Court already held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused either prior to the trap or at the time of trap. Therefore, in the instant case, the prosecution cannot place any reliance on the presumption clause under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, in the absence of establishment of the vital ingredient of demand of illegal gratification. On this sole ground itself, the entire prosecution case is liable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Madras High Court

S.Venkatappa Chetty vs State 

Dated : 26.07.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA

Crl.A.No.1212 of 2003

S.Venkatappa Chetty .. Appellant/Accused

Vs.

State rep. By

Inspector of Police,

Vigilance and Anti Corruption,

Salem.

(Crime No.3/AC/94) .. Respondent/Complainant

* * *

Prayer : Appeal preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentenced passed against the appellant in the judgment dated 28.07.2003 made in Special C.C.No.126/1995 on the file of the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. * * *

For Appellant : Mr.S.Karthikeyan

for M/s.K.S.Dinakaran

For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj,

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

JUDGMENT

The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, dated 28.07.2003 made in Special C.C.No.126 of 1995 convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

2.0. The gist of the prosecution case is that the accused was working as Inspector of Assessment in the office of the Assistant Engineer (Operation and Maintenance), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Venbadithalam in Salem District. He is said to have demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.50/- from P.W.3 for accepting the remittance of Rs.600/- as electricity consumption deposit charge in the name of his mother/P.W.9 and for issuing the receipt for the same and pursuant to the said demand, the accused said to have received the illegal gratification of Rs.50/- on the date of trap, i.e, on 31.09.1994 at his office. 2.1. It is seen that P.W.3 has turned hostile. His mother/P.W.9 has also not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution case has to be narrated as per the version of P.W.3 upto the stage of the prosecution treating him as hostile and as per the version of P.W.2, the trap witness and P.W.12, the Inspector, who has conducted the trap. 2.2. P.W.3 was running business in power loom and he has applied for electricity service connection. P.W.9, the mother of P.W.3, received a notice under Ex.P.12 calling her to pay a sum of Rs.600/-. On receipt of such notice, P.W.3 went to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board office and enquired as to where he has to pay the amount. He was informed that the said amount would be collected only by the accused. Accordingly, P.W.3 met the accused and the accused informed P.W.3 that he has to give a sum of Rs.50/- for issuing the receipt for the payment of the amount of Rs.600/-.

2.3. Again P.W.3 met the accused after three days with an amount of Rs.600/- received from his mother/P.W.9. The accused informed P.W.3 that he has to give Rs.50/- as P.W.3 owes Rs.50/- to him. P.W.3 further stated that while he was working in the house of the accused 2-3 years back, he has obtained a loan of Rs.50/- from him and the said amount was demanded by the accused. As he has not brought the said amount, he has returned back to his house. 2.4. Again P.W.3 met the accused 2-3 days thereafter and he has repaid the loan of Rs.50/- and he has also given a sum of Rs.600/- towards electricity consumption charges. The accused received the same and issued the receipt, Ex.P.11. P.W.3 further stated that he has signed in 2-3 papers in electricity board office under Ex.P.2 and P.13. He has also admitted his signature in the report, Ex.P.25. But he has disowned the contents of the report. At this stage, the prosecution sought for permission to treat him as hostile and the permission was accorded by the trial Court. 2.5. Now the case of the prosecution has to be narrated as per the version of P.W.2, the trap witness, and P.W.12, the Inspector of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department.

2.6. P.W.12 stated that P.W.3 came to the vigilance and anti-corruption office on 30.08.1994 at 5.00 p.m. and gave the report, Ex.P.25. He registered the case in Crime No.3/AC/1994. Ex.P.26 is the First Information Report and he sent the same to the Court. P.W.12 in order to take action and get sanction, summoned two witnesses, one from the Public Works Department and another form the Agricultural Training, viz., P.W.2 and another witness. He has instructed P.W.3 to come on the next day with Rs.600/- towards deposit fund and Rs.50/- to be given to the accused as bribe amount. P.W.3 appeared before P.W.12 on 31.08.1994. P.W.2, the trap witness, and another witness, also arrived at that time. P.W.3 was introduced to the trap witnesses. Thereafter, P.W.12 demonstrated Phenolphthalein test and the solutions were kept in a bottle and a label was also affixed as M.O.2. The phenolphthalein and sodium powders were taken separately as M.Os.3 and 4. He smeared Rs.50/- (5 numbers of 10 rupees notes) with phenolphthalein powder and put it into the pocket of P.W.3. 2.7. P.W.12 instructed P.W.3 to take the said amount to the office of the accused and only in the event of the demand made by the accused, he has to give the said amount and thereafter, P.W.3 has to come out and give the prearranged signal by folding his full hand shirt sleeves. P.W.2 was also instructed to accompany P.W.3 and further instructed to act as the brother-in-law of P.W.3 to the accused. P.W.3 has also taken the demand notice under Ex.P.12 along with him. The proceedings were recorded under Ex.P.2. 2.8. The raiding party left the vigilance office on 31.08.1994 at 10.30 a.m. in a Jeep. They stopped the Jeep at 11.15 a.m. at Vembadithalam Bus Stop. P.W.12 instructed P.Ws.2 and 3 to go to the office of the accused and P.W.12 and his party followed them. P.Ws.2 and 3 entered into the office of the accused at 11.25 a.m. P.W.12 and his party were waiting for the prearranged signal of P.W.3. 2.9. P.W.2, the trap witness, who accompanied P.W.3, stated that both of them entered into the office of the accused and met the accused. The accused asked P.W.3 whether he has brought the amount of Rs.50/- as he has asked earlier and P.W.3 stated that he has brought the amount and handed over five 10 rupee notes to the accused. The accused kept the amount in his shirt pocket. He has also received Rs.600/- and the demand notice, Ex.P.12, issued to P.W.9 and put the amount of Rs.600/- in his table drawer and issued the receipt, Ex.P.11 to P.W.3. The accused has not enquired about the presence of P.W.2. Thereafter, both P.Ws.2 and 3 came out from the office of the accused and P.W.3 gave the prearranged signal by folding the sleeves of his full hand shirt. 2.10. When P.Ws.2 and 3 came out from the office of the accused, P.W.12 claimed that he has received prearranged signal from P.W.3 and thereafter, he went inside the office of the accused along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and P.W.3 identified the accused. Thereafter, he has instructed P.W.3 to go and wait outside the office of the accused. The accused got tensed. Thereafter, P.W.12 conducted phenolphthalein test which proved positive. The solutions have been kept in two bottles, viz., M.Os.5 and 6 and thereafter, P.W.12 asked the accused about the money received from P.W.3. The accused took out the amount of Rs.50/-, in denomination of 5 10 rupee notes, from the left hand side shirt inner pocket and the numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers already noted in the mahazar and the same tallied. P.W.12 asked the accused whether he is having any other amount and for that, the accused produced some amounts from the outer side of the left hand pocket saying that the said amount belongs to him. The accused also produced the collection amount towards electricity board which was handed over to P.W.11/Assistant Engineer. P.W.12 also recovered permanent receipt book and cash book, Exs.P.3 and P.4. M.O.7, shirt of the accused was also recovered. Application Register/Ex.P.6, Demand Register/Ex.P.7, Attendance Register/Ex.P.5 and the file relating to the application of P.W.9/Ex.P.9 were seized by P.W.12. In the Demand Register/Ex.P.7, P.W.12 made an endorsement under Ex.P.28 and on the same day at 2.00 p.m. he has arrested the accused and the trap proceedings have been recorded under Ex.P.10 and he also seized Exs.P.11 and P.12 and the receipt for the payment of Rs.600/- under Ex.P.13. He prepared rough sketch/Ex.P.14 for the office of the accused. He searched the house of the accused from 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. and no incriminating documents or materials were seized. Ex.P.15 is the Search List. He brought the accused to the Vigilance office and released him at 6.45 p.m. 2.11. P.W.13/the Investigating Officer, took up further investigation and examined P.Ws.3, 4 and 12. He also examined the accused. He examined P.W.9, the mother of P.W.3, on 01.09.1994. After examination of the other witnesses and on completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused on 14.08.1995 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 13, filed Exs.P.1 to P.28 and marked M.Os.1 to 8.

4. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials available against him through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he has denied his complicity. He has not chosen to examine any witness on his side and marked Ex.D.1.

5.1. Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction would vehemently contend that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence and put forward the following contentions : (a) The prosecution has failed to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification made by the accused as P.W.3, who is the sole witness to speak about the alleged demand made prior to the trap, has turned hostile and in respect of the demand made on 31.08.1994, the trap date, P.W.3 has categorically stated that the accused asked for the amount which he has given to P.W.3 as loan and accordingly, P.W.3 has given Rs.50/- and as such, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of bribe made by the accused prior to the date of trap. (b) The alleged demand of illegal gratification made by the accused on the date of trap is also not proved by the prosecution through any other acceptable evidence as the prosecution placed reliance only on the evidence of P.W.2 as P.W.3 has turned hostile and even according to P.W.2, he has simply stated that the accused asked P.W.3 as to whether he has brought the amount he has asked earlier and the said amount cannot be construed to be the amount towards illegal gratification as it is categorically stated by P.W.3 that it is only meant for repayment of the loan and as such, from the evidence of P.W.2, it cannot be stated that the accused asked only the amount towards illegal gratification. Therefore, the prosecution has also miserably failed to prove the alleged demand made event at the time of trap. (c) The prosecution having failed to prove the alleged demand made by the accused, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be raised.

(d) The prosecution version to the effect that the appellant is said to have demanded a trivial and paltry amount of Rs.50/- for issuing the receipt for payment of Rs.600/- is highly artificial and unbelievable.

(e) In the absence of the proof of demand, the prosecution cannot place reliance on the mere receipt of the amount of Rs.50/- from the accused.

5.2. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant would also place reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.Subramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2006 (1) SCC 401 and A.Subair v. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (6) SCC 587.

6. Per contra, Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would contend that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence through P.W.2 and P.W.12. It is contended that though the complainant/P.W.3 has turned hostile, he has categorically stated about going to the office of the accused earlier and thereafter, on the date of trap upto the stage of the accused asking for the amount which he has already instructed him to bring. It is further contended that the evidence of P.W.2, the trap witness, is quite clear and natural and he has implicated the accused for the alleged demand of illegal gratification made at the time of trap and only thereafter, P.W.3 has taken the amount from his pocket and handed over the same to the accused which he has kept in the pocket of the left hand side of the shirt. It is contended that the phenolphthalein test conducted by the prosecution is proved positive. It is pointed out that though P.W.3 has stated that he has paid the amount towards loan, the accused has not given any explanation at any point of time either during the questioning put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or during the course of cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.12. Therefore, it is contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and the trial judge has rightly convicted the accused by placing reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

7. This Court considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire materials available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction.

8. As P.W.3, the star witness in this case has turned hostile, the prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, the trap witness, who has accompanied the complainant/P.W.3 and P.W.12, the Inspector Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, who has conducted the trap.

9. The first and foremost burden lies on the prosecution is to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused. The case of the prosecution is to the effect that the accused demanded illegal gratification prior to the trap conducted on 31.08.1994 as well as on the date of trap while P.W.2 accompanied with P.W.3 and met the accused at his office.

10. As far as the demand made prior to the trap is concerned, the prosecution is left with the report, Ex.P.25 alone since, as already pointed out, the author of the report, Ex.P.25 has turned hostile and the First Information Report being not a substantive piece of evidence cannot be placed reliance by this Court for testing the credibility of the version of the prosecution in respect of the alleged demand made by the accused prior to the trap. The report, Ex.P.25, was marked only through P.W.12, Inspector. Therefore, this Court has no difficulty for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged demand of Rs.50/- as illegal gratification made by the accused prior to the trap.

11. Now coming to the prosecution version regarding the alleged demand of illegal gratification of Rs.50/- from P.W.3 by the accused at the time of trap, i.e., on 31.08.1997, the prosecution case is left with the sole and solitary testimony of P.W.2, the trap witness alone. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Som Parkash V. State of Punjabreported in AIR 1992 SC 665, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the witnesses forming part of raiding party are not independent witnesses. Therefore, P.W.2 cannot be considered to be an independent witness and as such, his evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution and his evidence is liable to be sifted, analysed and tested like any other witness.

12. At the outset, it is to be stated that P.W.2 is a total stranger to the accused and he has accompanied P.W.3 at the time of trap to the office of the accused. P.W.12 has also instructed that P.W.2 to be introduced to the accused as brother-in-law of P.W.3. But it is seen that there is absolutely no evidence available on record to show that the accused asked P.W.3 about his relationship with P.W.2. If the accused had intention to demand any illegal gratification from P.W.3, the normal and prudent conduct of the accused is to verify about the relationship of P.W.2 with P.W.3. But P.W.2 has categorically stated even in his chief examination to the effect that the accused has not enquired about P.W.2. It is the version of P.W.2 that the accused on seeing P.W.3 has simply asked P.W.3 whether he has brought the amount of Rs.50/- which he has asked earlier and thereafter, P.W.3 handed over five 10 rupee notes to the accused and the accused received the said amount and put it in his shirt pocket. P.W.3 has also produced the notice, Ex.P.12, and Rs.600/- and the accused on receipt of the same, has given the receipt for the payment under Ex.P.11 and returned the notice, Ex.P.12 to P.W.3. Considering the above said sequence of events and totality of circumstances, as narrated by P.W.2, by no stretch of imagination, it could be contended that the accused has meant the said trivial and paltry amount of Rs.50/- as illegal gratification. In view of the same, the possibility of the accused asking P.W.2 to repay the amount of Rs.50/- as he has given earlier as loan could not be ruled out. It is also pertinent to note that the accused has also promptly issued the receipt under Ex.P.11 for payment of Rs.600/- to P.W.3. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused either prior to the trap or at the time of trap.

13. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.Venkata Subbarao V. State reported in 2006 (13) SCC 305. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that decision held as hereunder :

"24. Submission of the learned counsel for the State that presumption has rightly been raised against the appellant, cannot be accepted as, inter alia, the demand itself had not been proved. In the absence of a proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise. Section 20 of the "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988" provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved.

25. Furthermore, even in such a case, the burden on an accused does not have to meet the same standard of proof, as is required to be made by the prosecution"

The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as this Court already held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused either prior to the trap or at the time of trap. Therefore, in the instant case, the prosecution cannot place any reliance on the presumption clause under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of establishment of the vital ingredient of demand of illegal gratification. On this sole ground itself, the entire prosecution case is liable to be rejected.

14. Now let me consider the second limb of the prosecution version to the effect that an amount of Rs.50/- is said to have been recovered from the accused. It is seen that the phenolphthalein test is also proved positive. At the outset, it is relevant to refer to a landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.Subramanian V. State of T.N. reported in 2006 (1) SCC 401. The Hon'ble Apex Court in that decision held as hereunder :

"The evidence in this case no doubt proves that a sum of Rs.200/- was paid by P.W.1 to the appellant. But the crucial question is whether the appellant had demanded the said amount as illegal gratification to show any official favour to P.W.1 and whether the said amount was paid by P.W.1 and received by the appellant as consideration for showing such official favour. Mere receipt of Rs.200/- by the appellant (admitted by the appellant) will not be sufficient to fasten guilt under Section 5(1)(a) or Section 5(1)(d) of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification."

The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. At the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that it is already held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the accused as P.W.3, the star witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has categorically stated that he owes an amount of Rs.50/- and only that amount he has given to the accused at the time of trap. It is also again to be pointed out that P.W.2, the trap witness, has also categorically stated in his chief examination itself that the accused asked the amount which he has already asked P.W.3 to bring. P.W.3 has categorically stated in his evidence that the accused only meant the amount of loan received by him from the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 makes it crystal clear that the accused has received the amount of Rs.50/- towards the loan to be repaid by P.W.3. Such being the position, mere receipt of Rs.50/- and recovery of the same will not be sufficient to mulct the accused for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

15. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.Subair V. State of Kerala reported in 2009 (6) SCC 587, in which it was held as hereunder :

"19. It needs no emphasis that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and the accused should be considered innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, the vital ingredient, necessary to be established to procure a conviction for the offences under consideration."

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the same decision dealt with the provision under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by incorporating the said provision as hereunder :

"20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration

(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 of Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under Claus (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification of that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (1) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.

22. Sub-Section (3) is a "non-obstante clause". It provides that where the gratification is trivial and the Court is of the opinion that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn, it may decline to draw the presumption as referred to in Sub-sections (1) and (2). In other words, the Court is not bound to draw a presumption under Section 20 where the alleged gratification is too trivial. In a case such as this an inference of corruption may not be fairly drawn as the alleged demand was of Rs.25/- only. In our view, the High Court was not justified in drawing the presumption under Section 20 and holding that offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act was proved.

23. Mere recovery of currency notes (Rs.20/- and Rs.5/-) denomination, in the facts of the present case, by itself cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe. "

The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. In respect of the case on hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that the amount of gratification of Rs.50/- is so trivial and as such, no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn and as such, the presumption under sub-section (3) of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be raised.

17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that mere recovery of Rs.50/- by itself is not sufficient proof of the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same.

18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made in S.C.No.126 of 1995 by the learned Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, dated 28.07.2003 is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted.

K.N.BASHA, J.

ap/gg

19. It is reported that the appellant is on bail. The bail bond executed, if any, shall stand terminated and fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to him.

26.07.2010

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

ap/gg

To

1. The Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,

Salem.

3. The Public Prosecutor,

Madras High Court,

Chennai 104.

Crl.A.No.1212 of 2003