Madras High Court
K.V. Samiyappan, vs State Rep. By Deputy on 17 July, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Delivered On: 17.07.2026
Reserved On: 10.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
1.K.V.Samiyappan (Died)
S/o.Veerappa Gounder
Formerly Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Union Office,
Elachipalyam,
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District.
2.S.Rajam
W/o.K.V.Samiyappan,
No.68V/B, Ashok Nagar 2nd Street,
Arthanari School Street, Santhapettai Pudur,
Namakkal District – 637 001.
(2nd appellant substituted as LR of the
deceased sole appellant vide order of the
Court dated 17.07.2025 in Crl.A.
No.278 of 2016 by DBCJ) ... Appellant in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016
1.T.Paramasivam
S/o.Thiruvenkata Naidu
Former Fitter,
Elachipalayam Panchayat,
Manickampalayam, Pullakoundampatti P.O.
Tiruchengode Taluk,
Namakkal District.
2.Senthilkumari
W/o.Paramasivam
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
3.Sarojini
D/o.Paramasivam
4.Paramasivam
S/o.Paramasivam
(All are residing at Elaichipalayam Panchayat
Manickampalayam, Pullakoundampatti P.O.
Tiruchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District)
(Sole Appellant died. Appellants 2 to 4
substituted as Lrs of the deceased sole
appellant as per the order of this Court
dated 18/06/2025 in Crl.MP.12096/2025
in Crl.A.275/2016) ... Appellants in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016
Vs.
State rep by
Deputy Superintend of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
Salem
(Cr.No.9/AC/99) ... Respondent in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016
State represented by its
Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Salem @ Namakkal
(Cr.No.9/AC/1999) ... Respondent in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016
Prayer in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016:
Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment
of The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special Judge Namakkal
made in Spl. Calendar Case No.12 of 2002 dated 29.03.2016
convicting the appellant herein for the offence under Section 7 of
2/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to
undergo two months Simple Imprisonment.
(Case number amended as per the order of this Court dated
28.04.2016 Made in Crl.M.P.No.5274 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016
by Dr.PDSJ).
Prayer in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016:
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside
the judgment and sentence and conviction imposed upon the appellant
herein by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special Judge,
Namakkal in Spl.C.C. No.12 of 2002 dated 29.03.2016 and acquit the
appellant herein.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar
Senior Counsel
for M/s.C.D.Johnson
in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016
Mr.R.Karthikeyan
in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar
Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side)
High Court of Madras
in both Crl.As.
3/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both the appeals have been filed as against the judgment
passed in Spl.C.C.No.12 of 2002 on the file of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate/ Special Judge, Namakkal, thereby convicting the accused
for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2.The appellant in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016 is arrayed as second
accused (A2) and the appellant in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016 is arrayed as
first accused (A1) in Spl.C.C.No.12 of 2002. Pending appeal both the
accused/ appellants died. Though the charges against the accused
were abated, the legal heirs of the deceased appellants were
impleaded as appellants for the purpose of getting other terminal
benefits, if the accused are acquitted from the charges.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant
has an agricultural land and he dug up a borewell since there was
water scarcity. He already possessed electricity service connection for
his well. Inorder to change over the electricity service connection from
the well to the borewell, the defacto complainant have to produce no
4/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
objection certificate from the Block Development Officer inorder to
verify if any other borewell is situated within the 100 meters radius of
the defacto complainant borewell. Therefore, the defacto complainant
approached A1 and applied for no objection certificate. Immediately,
A1 inspected the defacto complainant’s land and the borewell dug by
the defacto complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.600/- as bribe for
no objection certificate and such amount has to be paid to A2.
However, the defacto complainant expressed his inability to pay such
amount and as such A1 reduced the amount from Rs.600/- to
Rs.550/-. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint
and after registration of FIR, the respondent has set up the trap.
During the trap, the accused were caught red handed and they were
arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completion of
investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken
cognizance by the trial Court.
4.The prosecution in order to substantiate their case
examined witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.34. On the side of the accused, they examined witnesses D.W.1
and D.W.2 and marked exhibits Ex.D1 and Ex.D2. Material objects
M.O.1 to M.O.9 were also marked.
5/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
5.Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence,
the Trial Court found, A1/ appellant in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016 guilty for
the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act and A2/ appellant in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016 guilty for
the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
6.The Trial Court sentenced the first accused/ appellant in
Crl.A.No.275 of 2016 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo two
months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to
undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under
Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The total fine amount
imposed on A1 is Rs.50,000/-.
7.The Trial Court sentenced the second accused/ appellant in
Crl.A.No.278 of 2016 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
three years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo two
6/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
8.Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the
accused/ deceased appellants have filed these criminal appeals before
this Court.
9.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.278 of 2016/ A2 submitted that even according to the case of
the prosecution, A1 only demanded bribe from the defacto
complainant. In the absence of any such demand no offence is made
out under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. P.W.3
deposed that A2 did not receive any money and also he did not
demand any money. Further P.W.4’s presence was not even
whispered by P.Ws.2 and 3. Further, no money was recovered from
A2. In the name of A2, A1 demanded bribe from the defacto
complainant. Infact, on the date of inspection itself, no objection
certificate was signed by A2 and it was also entered into the office
register. There is absolutely no evidence to show that on behalf of A2,
A1 received money. There is proper explanation that the sum of
Rs.550/- was collected only as Flag Day collection and a receipt was
7/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
supposed to be issued and even before issuance of the same, the
accused were trapped, arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.275 of 2016/ A1 submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3
would go to show that there was no demand made by both the
accused. The sanctioning authority did not accord sanction by
applying its mind and it was accorded mechanically without
considering the explanation. Even according to the evidence of P.W.2,
there was no demand of any bribe during the inspection of the land.
The trap laying officer has instructed P.W.2 to give the money to any
person who demands the money and A2 reached the office before A1.
Therefore, P.W.2 waited for A1 to come and handed over the money to
A1. Therefore, the prosecution trapped the accused and charged them
for other reasons. The accused also proved the motive to implicate
them for the corruption charges by examining D.W.1 and D.W.2. They
categorically deposed that there was order passed by A2 to vacate the
premises of Village Administrative Officer, even then Village
Administrative Officer, who is one of the witnesses herein failed to
vacate the premises. Therefore, the Village Administrative Officer was
forcibly evicted by A2 for which, A1 assisted him.
8/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
11.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Crl.A.No.275 of 2016/ A1 further submitted that according to the case
of the prosecution, on the date of the alleged trap, after receipt of the
tainted money, A1 went into the room of A2 and obtained signature in
the no objection certificate, whereas, P.W.6 categorically deposed that
no one visited the office of the second accused to obtain any signature
in the no objection certificate. P.W.6 is none other than the Assistant
Block Development Officer, who is sitting adjacent to the room of A2.
Further, the prosecution suppressed the first complaint lodged by the
defacto complainant before the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Therefore, the trap laying officer cooked up the entire case and set up
a trap. When the prosecution failed to prove the demand, the entire
charges are vitiated and the trial Court ought not to have convicted
the accused. Further, P.W.4 was very much available at the time of
alleged demand made by A1 from P.W.2, however, the presence of
P.W.4 was not even whispered by P.W.2. Therefore, inorder to
strengthen the case of prosecution, P.W.4 was inserted. Therefore,
the entire conviction and sentence imposed on the accused cannot be
sustained and liable to be set aside.
9/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
12.The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu
(Criminal Side) submitted that the prosecution categorically proved the
demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money. P.W.2
categorically deposed about the occurrence and corroborated by
P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.4 was not accompanied by P.W.2. P.W.4 was also
present at the time of demand made by A1 from P.W.2. Therefore,
there is absolutely no reason to dis-believe the evidence of P.W.4.
Though the no objection certificate was signed prior to the trap, it was
not issued to the defacto complainant and both the accused demanded
bribe from the defacto complainant. When P.W.2 visited A1, A1
demanded bribe and P.W.2 refused to give bribe. Therefore, the
defacto complainant wanted to see A2. When P.W.2 visited A2’s
Chamber, he suggested him to pay the money to A1 as demanded by
him for issuance of no objection certificate. Therefore, the demand
was proved by the prosecution. During the trap, A1 received the
tainted money and caught red handed. The phenolphthalein test also
resulted in positive. Hence, the trial Court rightly convicted the
accused and it does not warrant any interference of this Court.
13.Heard the arguments advanced on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
10/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
14.At the time of the alleged occurrence, A1 was the Fitter
and A2 was the Block Development Officer. The defacto complainant
was examined as P.W.2. The sanctioning authority deposed as P.W.1.
P.W.2 had deposed that he dug up a borewell and as such he wants to
have change over switch to operate the borewell motor pumpset from
the well electricity service connection for which the electricity board
insisted no objection certificate from the concerned authority.
Therefore, on 16.12.1999 P.W.2 went to the office of the accused and
applied for no objection certificate. A1 received the application. He
asked P.W.2 whether he possess any two wheeler for inspection. On
the next day, i.e., on 17.12.1999, P.W.2 went to the office of A1 along
with two wheeler borrowed from other friend inorder to take A1 along
with him to visit his land.
15.After inspection, A1 found that within the radius of 100
meters there is no other borewell situated from the bore well dug by
P.W.2. Thereafter, he was dropped at bus stop. At that juncture, A1
demanded a sum of Rs.600/- as bribe to be paid to A2. P.W.2 said
that he had no source of money. So, A1 reduced the bribe from
Rs.600/- to Rs.550/- and directed P.W.2 to go to his office. On
11/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
21.12.1999, P.W.2 went to the office of A1 at about 12.00 noon.
When A1 asked about the money, P.W.2 replied that he had no
money. Then, P.W.2 went inside the A2’s chamber. On seeing P.W.2,
A2 asked him, why are you coming without money and scolded P.W.2
that if he want to have no objection certificate, go and see A1 and pay
the amount as demanded by A1.
16.Since P.W.2 did not want to give any bribe, he lodged
complaint on 22.12.1999. After registration of FIR, trap was set up on
23.12.1999. However, on that day, at about 10.30 a.m. A1 was not
available and they waited till 11.30 a.m. At that juncture, P.W.2 did
not see A2. At about 12.45 p.m., A1 came to his office and P.W.2
asked about his no objection certificate. P.W.2 was present along with
P.W.3. Immediately A1 asked about the money and the tainted
money was given to A1. Thereafter, A1 went to the chamber of A2
and obtained signature in the no objection certificate. After obtaining
signature from P.W.2, no objection certificate was issued to him. Thus
it is clear that P.W.2 did not even see A2.
17.Further, during the cross examination, P.W.2 categorically
deposed that on 16.12.1999, he did not see A2. Further A1 did not
12/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
demand any money on the next day, even during inspection or in his
office. Further he did not even whisper about the presence of P.W.4 in
the office of A1. On 22.12.1999, P.W.2 went to the office of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption and
lodged the complaint. However, it was not brought to the notice of the
trial Court and it was not marked by the prosecution. Further, he also
deposed that the no objection certificate was taken by A1 from his
records.
18.The specific case of the accused is that the no objection
certificate was already signed as early as on 17.12.1999 itself i.e., on
the date of inspection and it was kept in the office cupboard of A2.
Therefore, once no objection certificate was signed by A2 on the date
of inspection itself, there is absolutely no circumstances for demand of
any bribe by the accused. It is the specific case of the accused that
they collected donation for Flag Day. The person who accompanied
P.W.2 deposed as P.W.3. He also deposed that they did not see A2.
P.W.3 also admitted that he did not see the signature put up by A2 in
the no objection certificate. The person who was available along with
P.W.2 in the office of A1 has deposed as P.W.4. On the date of alleged
second demand i.e., on 23.12.1999, he was there in the office of A1.
13/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
P.W.2 asked about the no objection certificate, for which, A1
demanded money. According to P.W.2, he visited the office of A1 on
22.12.1999 and on the same day he lodged the complaint. On
23.12.1999, the trap was set up.
19.That apart, the presence of P.W.4 was not even whispered
by P.W.2 in his evidence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 has been
inserted by prosecution inorder to corroborate the evidence of P.W.2.
The evidence of P.W.4 is not believable and failed to support the case
of the prosecution. The Village Administrative Officer was examined as
P.W.5. He deposed that inorder to change his office, A2 took action
and issued notice. The Writer of the Block Development Officer was
examined as P.W.8. He deposed that A2 signed no objection
certificate as early as on 17.12.1999, in which he also entrusted.
Therefore, the evidence of P.W.8 is clear that the no objection
certificate was signed by A2 as early as on 17.12.1999 and it is
completely prohibitory to the evidence of P.W.2. According to P.W.2,
certificate was signed by A2 on 23.12.1999, that too after the receipt
of the bribe amount by A1.
20.The Junior Assistant of the Block Development Officer
14/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
deposed as P.W.12. P.W.12 deposed that on 17.12.1999, A1
inspected the land of P.W.2 and issued report that within the radius of
100 meters there is no other borewell situated from the bore well dug
by P.W.2. It was handed over to A2 and on the same day, A2 signed
the no objection certificate and it was ready for issuance. However,
P.W.2 did not collect the same, which clearly shows that inorder to set
up a trap, at the instigation of other witnesses, the complaint was
given by P.W.2 and a trap was set up on 23.12.1999. It is also seen
that P.W.2 deposed that on 22.12.1999, he visited the office of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police and lodged a complaint, however, it
was not produced by the prosecution. Therefore, in overall
circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the charge, demand and
the acceptance of the bribe.
21.In this regard, it is relevant to rely upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in
MANU/SC/1158/2015 in the case of N.Sunkanna Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh, the relevant portion of the same is extracted
hereunder:
“6.The prosecution examined the other fair
price shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and15/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 20166 to prove that the accused was receiving
monthly mamools from them. PWs 4 and 6
did not state so and they were declared
hostile. PW-3 though in the examination-in-
chief stated so, in the cross-
examination turned round and stated that the
accused never asked any monthly mamool
and he did not pay Rs.50/- at any time. The
prosecution has not examined any other
witness present at the time when the money
was demanded by the accused and also
when the money was allegedly handed-over to
the accused by the complainant. The
complainant himself had disowned his
complaint and has turned hostile and there
is no other evidence to prove that the accused
had made any demand. In short there is no
proof of the demand allegedly made by the
accused. The only other material available is
the recovery of the tainted currency notes
from the possession of the accused. The
possession is also admitted by the accused. It
is settled law that mere possession and
recovery of the currency notes from the
accused without proof of demand will not bring
home the offence under Section 7, since
demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-
16/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
non to constitute the said offence. The above
also will be conclusive insofar as the offence
under Section 13(1)(d) is concerned as in the
absence of any proof of demand for illegal
gratification the use of corrupt or illegal
means or abuse of position as a public servant
to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage cannot be held to be established. It
is only on proof of acceptance of illegal
gratification that presumption can be drawn
under Section 20 of the Act that such
gratification was received for doing or
forbearing to do any official act. Unless there
is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof
of acceptance will not follow. Reference may
be made to the two decisions of three-Judge
Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13
SCC 55] and P. Satyanarayna Murthy vs.
The District Inspector of Police and
another [(2015 (9) SCALE 724].”
22.The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on
hand. When the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe, the
conviction for the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act
cannot be sustained since the demand of illegal gratification is sine
17/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
qua non to constitute the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
23.In view of the above, the prosecution failed to prove the
charges beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt goes in
favour of the accused. Though both the accused died, the conviction
and sentence imposed against them cannot be sustained and are liable
to be set aside.
24.Both the criminal appeals are allowed. The conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special
Judge Namakkal in Spl. Calendar Case No.12 of 2002 under judgment
dated 29.03.2016 as against the deceased appellants are set aside.
The deceased appellant in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016/ A2 is acquitted from
the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
deceased appellant in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016/ A1 is acquitted from the
charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The fine amount, if any, paid by the deceased
appellant in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016 is ordered to be refunded to his legal
heir/ second appellant in Crl.A.No.278 of 2016 and the fine amount, if
any, paid by the deceased appellant in Crl.A.No.275 of 2016 is ordered
18/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
to be refunded to his legal heirs/ appellants 2 to 4 in Crl.A.No.275 of
2016. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the deceased appellants,
shall stand terminated/ discharged.
17.07.2026
pri
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order: Yes/ No
NCC: Yes/ No
To
1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Special Judge,
Namakkal.
2.The Deputy Superintend of Police,
Vigilance & Anti-Corruption,
Salem
(Cr.No.9/AC/99)
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Salem @ Namakkal
(Cr.No.9/AC/1999)
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
19/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
pri
Pre-delivery Judgment in
Crl.A.Nos.278 and 275 of 2016
17.07.2026
20/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
