Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Criminal Appeal No. 142 & 145 Of 2010

Attorney(S)

For the Appellant M. Jegadeesh Pandian, M. Karunanithi, D. Selvam, R. Amarnath, Advocates. For the Respondent A. Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

Judges

Hon'ble Dr.Justice G. Jayachandran

Acts

Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
section 7 of P.C Act, 1988
Section 20 of P.C.Act,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Criminal Appeals arising out of Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2006

Factual and Procedural Background

Two accused persons (including S. Selvaraj, A-1, and G. Sithivinayagamoorthy, A-2) were tried in Special C.C.No.5 of 2006 on charges arising from a vigilance trap. The prosecution case began with a written complaint dated 23.08.2005 by Dharmaraja (described as Manager/Depot Manager of Priya Herbals), who alleged that, on 18.08.2005, an officer in the Commercial Tax Office demanded a bribe to accept the company's accounts and avoid assessment liability. The complaint led the Additional Superintendent of Police (District Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) to direct an inspector (Manmathapandian) to investigate and arrange a trap.

A trap was conducted on 23.08.2005: phenolphthalein-marked notes (Rs.2,000) were entrusted to Dharmaraja, who handed them over inside the Commercial Tax Office on the instructions allegedly given by the officer A-1 to A-2. The trap team intervened, recovered the tainted money from A-2, conducted the sodium carbonate–phenolphthalein test, produced M.O.1 (money) and M.O.2/M.O.3 (test samples), and prepared a mahazar (Ex.P.4 / Ex.P.14) narrating the trap.

At trial, the prosecution relied on P.W.3 (the de facto complainant), shadow witness P.W.4, the trap-laying officer (P.W.10) and other materials. The trial Court convicted the accused, applying presumptions under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act). The accused appealed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the conviction and secure acquittal. The appellate court ultimately allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, ordered refund of fine, and cancelled any bail bond.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the trial Court was right in considering the prosecution evidence sufficient to hold the accused guilty.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (Crl.A.(MD) No.145 — S. Selvaraj, A-1)

There are material inconsistencies in the prosecution case: the complaint named "Selvakumar" as the person who demanded the bribe, but at the trap the de facto complainant identified "Selvaraj" (the appellant). This discrepancy undermines the reliability of the de facto complainant (P.W.3).
The prosecution failed to explain withholding/absence of the person named in the complaint (Selvakumar) as a witness or accused; no adequate explanation for delay of five days in lodging the complaint.
Contradictions exist about the site of the trap: witnesses referred to Commercial Tax Office No.I whereas mahazar (Ex.P.14) refers to CTO No.IV; this, the appellant argued (relying on a precedent), goes to the root of the prosecution case.
There are inconsistencies between documentary evidence (mahazar) and ocular testimony regarding how the tainted money was possessed/recovered (kept in pocket vs. placed on table), which render the prosecution case doubtful.
Overall, the convictions are based on uncorroborated evidence of interested witnesses and should not have been sustained.

Appellant (Crl.A.(MD) No.142 — second accused)

Sanction to prosecute (where required) was not allegedly accorded by the competent authority.
The second accused's name did not appear in the original complaint or FIR; prosecution evidence indicates he did not demand the gratification.
The de facto complainant was not proven to be authorized to represent Priya Herbals; no documents were produced to show authorization.
Multiple material contradictions relating to the entrustment mahazar, mode of transport of parties, failure to seize the accounts book allegedly submitted at the trap, and contradictions about the recovery render the prosecution case unbelievable.
Conviction based on uncorroborated evidence of interested witnesses is unsustainable; therefore, acquittal is sought.

Submissions of the Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

The de facto complainant (P.W.3) and an independent witness (P.W.4) supported the prosecution version: P.W.4 witnessed the entrustment of tainted money and the demand by A-1 at the Commercial Tax Office.
Recovery of the money was demonstrated by P.W.4 and P.W.10; A-2 admitted receiving the money on instructions from A-1.
The misdescription of A-1's name as "Selvakumar" in the complaint was reconciled by the de facto complainant during the trap/mahazar and did not cause prejudice to the accused.
There was no contradiction regarding the place of the trap — the money was received at the seat of the accused in the CTO office, and the mahazar was later preferred at CTO No.IV; this sequence did not vitiate the prosecution case.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State represented by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Chennai v. K. Kantha, 2008 (2) MWN (Cr.) 486	The appellant relied on this judgment to support the submission that contradictions regarding the site of the trap are material and can go to the root of the prosecution case.	The opinion records that the appellant relied upon this authority. The court examined the factual allegations about the trap site and related discrepancies in the prosecution material; however, the court's decision turned on failures in the prosecution case (naming error, lack of preliminary enquiry, defects in proving demand/acceptance/recovery and absence of seized accounts), rather than on any direct application of this precedent to uphold the conviction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The appellate court undertook a factual and evidentiary review focused on whether the prosecution had proved the essential facts of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification, and whether the trial court was justified in convicting the accused by invoking the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act).

Key strands of the court's analysis (as set out in the opinion) are:

Authority and credibility of the de facto complainant (P.W.3): The court noted that P.W.3 claimed to be the Manager/Depot Manager of Priya Herbals but produced no document to show he was authorized to represent Priya Herbals before the Commercial Tax Office. The court reviewed departmental notices (Ex.P.7, Ex.P.8, Ex.P.3) which showed prior proceedings and the identity of the officer in post at the time of those notices (Jeyasingh), and that the appellant succeeded Jeyasingh only on 31.07.2005. This chronology undermined aspects of the prosecution narrative.
Three specific evidentiary failures identified by the court: (a) there was no document to show that P.W.3 or Priya Herbals availed the statutory opportunity to file objections within the prescribed period after Ex.P.3; (b) there was no evidence that the accounts were actually presented to A-1 on the day of trap or that P.W.3 or any representative explained why additional tax should not be imposed; and (c) the initial complaint wrongly named the person who demanded the bribe (Selvakumar) — a naming error which the court treated as significant when combined with other lapses.
Pre-trap enquiry/lapse by trap-laying officer: The court held that the trap-laying officer (P.W.10) was expected to make discreet preliminary enquiries about the complaint and the public servant against whom the complaint was lodged. The court found that P.W.10 had not made such preliminary enquiries and, as a result, proceeded with trap arrangements after registering a case against a person (Selvakumar) who, according to the court's findings, did not exist at the Sivakasi Commercial Tax Office. This procedural omission undermined the reliability of the prosecution's initiation and planning of the trap.
Defects in proof of the trap-day events and recovery: On the trap day (23.08.2005), P.W.3 and P.W.4 deposed that account books were submitted and that tainted money was given to A-2, who counted it and kept it in his pocket. However, the court observed that neither the accounts book nor the shirt in which A-2 allegedly kept the tainted money was recovered. Further, the phenolphthalein test was carried out after the accused handled the marked notes; the court held that the presence of phenolphthalein on A-2's hands, given the way the test was conducted, did not necessarily establish conscious possession of the bribe money or knowledge that it was illegal gratification.
On presumptions under Section 20, P.C. Act: The court emphasized that presumptions under Section 20 cannot substitute for the prosecution's duty to prove the essential facts (demand, acceptance, recovery, guilty knowledge). Considering the "severe lapse in the investigation and lacuna in the prosecution witnesses," the court concluded that the appellants could not be convicted merely by invoking the statutory presumption without satisfactory independent proof.
Weighing contradictions and benefit of doubt: After identifying contradictions in testimony, documentary lapses, the misnaming in the complaint, and the inadequacy of the preliminaries conducted by the trap team, the court concluded those defects collectively created reasonable doubt. On that basis the benefit of doubt was given to the appellants.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Criminal Appeals are allowed. The appellate court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in Special C.C.No.5 of 2006 dated 09.04.2010.

Direct consequences for the parties:

The convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants were quashed and set aside.
Any fine paid shall be refunded to the appellants.
Any bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.

Broader implications: The opinion does not articulate or predicate a newly stated legal principle beyond the application of established evidentiary standards and the existing presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. The court's decision emphasizes that statutory presumptions cannot replace the prosecution's obligation to independently prove demand, acceptance and conscious possession of tainted money, and that procedural lapses and contradictions in key particulars (naming errors, absence of preliminary enquiry, failure to seize physical corroborative items) can vitiate a prosecution founded on a trap. No explicit new precedent or wider rule was announced in the opinion; the immediate effect is the acquittal and restoration of the appellants' rights as stated above.

Show full summary ...

G. Sithivinayagamoorthy v. State Through The Inspector Of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Unit, Virudhunagar

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to allow this appeal by setting aside the conviction and judgment passed by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtu, Virudhunagar District in Special C.C.No.5 of 2006 dated 09.04.2010 and may be pleased to acquit the appellant/accused No.2 from all the charges.

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records of the case in Special C.C.No.5 of 2006 on the file of Special Court for corruption cases and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur and examine the legality of the proceedings of the impugned Judgment dated 09.04.2010 passed in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2006 and set aside the said impugned judgment and direct the Honourable acquittal of the accused.)

Common Judgment

1. Challenging the judgment of the trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2006, on the file of the learned Special Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, the above two appeals have been preferred by the accused persons, who were found guilty by the trial Court.

2. The case of the prosecution is as below:

(i) Dharmaraja, the Manager of Priya Herbals in his written complaint dated 23.08.2005 informed the Additional Superintendent of Police, District Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Virudhunagar that on 18.08.2005 at 10.30 a.m., he went to the Commercial Tax Office at Sivakasi and submitted the accounts of Priya Herbals for the year 2003-2004 to the Commercial Tax Officer No-I, Mr.Selvakumar. He, on verifying the accounts gave the final tax assessment letter. As per the said letter, M/s Priya Herbals was asked to pay 12% tax on the total turnover of Rs 4,43,040/- in addition 12% penalty and 5% surcharge for non submission of returns in time. Totally, as sum of Rs.88,60,080/- was demanded as tax, surcharge and penalty.

(ii) Dharmaraja refuted the assessment and struck to his statement of account. To accept his statement of accounts, Selvakumar demands bribe of Rs 2000/- or else he will impose tax and penalty as found in the notice. He has told him to meet on 23.08.2005 at 11.00 a.m., with bribe money. Only if he gives bribe, he will accept the account submitted and sign.

(iii) The Additional Superintendent of Police who received this complaint, directed Manmathapandian, Inspector of Police to register the case and investigate. Accordingly, Manmathapandian registered the FIR in Crime No.6 of 2005 for offence under section 7 of P.C Act, 1988 against Selvakumar, Commercial Tax Officer-I, Office of the Commercial Tax Office–1, Sivakasi and took up the investigation. He wrote to the Assistant Director, Co-operative Audit and Joint Director, Agricultural Department to depute a ‘D’ cadre staff to be as witnesses to the trap proceedings. Accordingly Rajmohan and Vanniyaraj reported to him. In the presence of these two witnesses, he demonstrated the significance of sodium carbonate – phenolphthalein test. Smeared the trap money of Rs.2000/- (4 x 500) with phenolphthalein power and entrusted to the de facto complainant Dharmaraja with instruction that he should take out the money only if the accused demands. Further, after the accused received the money he was asked to come out and give the signal to the trap team by whipping his face with his hand kerchief.

(iv) The trap team lead by Manmathapandian reached the Commercial Tax Office No.1, Sivakasi at about 12.00 noon. The defacto complainant (Dharmaraja) and the shadow witness (Rajmohan) went inside the office. The trap team took position outside the office.

(v) The defacto complainant (PW-3) and the shadow witness (PW-4) first met the office assistant Sithivinayagamorothy (A-2). He took them to the seat of Selvaraj (A-1). PW-3 told A-1 that he has brought the accounts for the year 2003-04. A-1 asked whether he has brought the money Rs 2000/-. PW-3 answered in affirmative. A-1 told PW-3 to keep the account books on the table and give the money to A-2.

(vi) On receiving the money, A-2 counted it and kept it in his pocket. When PW-3 asked for assessment order, A-1 told them to wait for some time. Thereafter, both PW-3 and PW-4 came down from the room of A-1. PW-3 gave the prearranged signal to the trap team waiting outside. (vii)On receipt of the signal, Manamathapandian (PW-10) and others entered the Commercial Tax Office No-1. A-1 and A-2 were identified by PW-3 and P.W.10., enquired P.W.3 about the happenings in the accused room. P.W.3 then stated that the name of the person who demanded money was not Selvakumar but Selvaraj. By inadvertently, in his complaint he has said that the person demanded money was Selvakumar.

(viii) He identified G.Sithivinayagamoorthy, Office Assistant who received tainted money and Selvaraj, CTO who demanded the bribe. When the trap laying Officer enquired G.Sithivinayagamoorthy about the bribe money, A-2 took out Rs.2,000/- from his bag and placed it on the table. A-2 explained that he did not receive the money on his own, he was instructed by A-1 to receive so he received the money from P.W.3. Thereafter, Sodium Carbonate solution was preferred. A-2 was asked to dip the hands, the solution turned pink, confirmed the presence of Phenolphthalein. The sample solution were collected in a bottle, labelled and sealed. The bottles are marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3. From the possession of A-1, records pertaining to the assessment of Priya Herbals were recovered. Recovery mahazar (Ex.P.4) was prepared narrating the entire trap proceedings and recovery of tainted money of Rs.2,000/- marked as M.O.1.

3. The trial Court considering the evidence let in by the prosecution has held that the charge against the accused persons are proved through the evidence of P.W.3 (de facto complainant) and shadow witnesses (P.W.4). Since the recovery of tainted money is proved beyond doubt, the accused is bound to explain the possession of the money which they have failed to explain. Therefore, holding that both the accused have failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of P.C.Act, they were held guilty.

The contention of the appellant in Crl.A.(MD)No. 145 of 2010:-

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/S.Selvaraj (A-1) would submit that the trial Court miserably failed to consider the inconsistency in the case of the prosecution. As per the complaint given by P.W.3, the person who demanded bribe is one Selvakumar. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 18.08.2005 when he met Selvakumar at CTO Office he demanded Rs.2,000/- to accept the accounts of his company. For the first time, P.W.3 has informed the trap laying officer after the trap, that the Officer who demanded and accepted money from him is Selvaraj and not Selvakumar. P.W.10 who registered the complaint Ex.P.4, had deposed that on receiving the complaint he made discreet enquiry about the accused and found that there was a person by name Selvakumar working in the Commercial Tax Office, where the appellant Selvaraj is also working. While the complaint and pre-trap mahazar reveals Selvakumar as a person who demands the bribe, all of a sudden the trap laying officer has fixed Selvaraj(A-1) and G.Sithivinayagamoorthy (A-2) who are not the accused in the complaint. The prosecution has not given adequate explanation for withholding and keeping back the said Selvakumar from producing him in the Court either as witness or as an accused. The inconsistency in the case of the de facto complainant renders him un-reliable. Based on the uncorroborative evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are interested witnesses, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant. The prosecution has failed to justify the delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint regarding the demand of bribe. The manipulation in the date as found in the complaint and the error in the name of the Officer who demands the bribe would prove that the case of the prosecution is not supported by the reliable witnesses.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would also point out the discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution regarding the trap spot. while P.W.1 and P.W.4 have stated that the Office of the Commercial Tax Office No.I as trap spot, contrarily, in the mahazar Ex.P.14 the alleged place where bribe money received by the accused persons was at Commercial Tax Office No.IV CTO-I and CTO-IV are located at different directions and place. The contradictions regarding the site of trap goes to the root of the prosecution. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of State represented by Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Chennai Vs. K.Kantha reported in 2008(2) MWN (Cr.) 486.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would also submit that the prosecution witnesses miserably failed to corroborate each other regarding the manner and place the tainted money recovered from A-2. In the mahazar (Ex.P.14), it is mentioned that the second accused who alleged to have received the bribe money was having it in his hand and put it on the table. Contrary to the documentary evidence Ex.P.14, P.W.3 has deposed that A-2 received money and kept it in his pocket. Whereas, P.W.10 trap laying officer has deposed that the second accused took out the tainted money from his pocket and kept it on the table. Thus, the documentary evidence and the ocular evidence vary with each other, which makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful.

The contention of the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No. 142 of 2010:-

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/second accused would submit that the order sanctioning to prosecute was not accorded by the competent authority. Even according to the prosecution witnesses, he did not demand any gratification from the de facto complainant and his name is not found in the complaint or in the First Information Report. The de facto complainant is not a competent person to lodge the complaint or person authorized to deal with the accounts of Priya Herbals. In the absence of document to show that he represents Priya Herbals and had authorisation to represent the owner of Priya Herbals, the trial Court ought not to have accepted the case of the prosecution.

8. The material contradictions regarding the entrustment mahazar, mode of transport by the de facto complainant and the trap team to the office of the accused, non seizure of the accounts book of Priya Herbals which alleged to have been submitted by P.W.3 to A-1 on the day of trap and the contradictions in the prosecution case in respect of recovery of tainted money put together renders the prosecution case unbelievable.

9. Inspite of lacuna in the prosecution case the trial Court has convicted the appellant based on uncorroborative evidence of interested witnesses. Therefore, he sought for acquittal.

Submissions of the Government Advocate (Crl.Side):-

10. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the complainant (P.W.3) who is representative of Priya Herbals had in his complaint and in deposition had indicated that A-1 as a person in charge of CTO-I demanded money to verify the accounts and to ignore the earlier assessment made by his predecessor and to accept the turn over amount as stated in the monthly returns filed by the Priya Herbals for the year 2003-2004. P.W.4 the independent witness has witnessed the entrustment of the tainted money to the de facto complainant and the demand of bribe by A-1 at the Commercial Tax Office. The recovery of money on the information given by A-2 is proved through P.W.4 and P.W.10. A-2 has admitted that he has received the money on the instruction of A-1. Thus the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that A-1 demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- from P.W.3 and on 23.08.2005, directed P.W.3 to hand over the money to A-2. In turn A-2 accepted the money. The mis-description of A-1's name as Selvakumar in the complaint has been reconciled by the de facto complainant on the day of trap. Since the money was recovered from A-2 in the presence of A-1 and the prosecution having proved that A-2 received the bribe money on the instruction of A-2. Knowing fully well that the money as illegal gratification demanded earlier by A-1 to verify the accounts of Priya Herbals. Therefore, there is no prejudice is caused to the accused persons, though, their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report or in the complaint.

11. Regarding the place of trap, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there is no contradiction or discrepancy in the prosecution witnesses regarding the trap spot. A-1 is the CTO No-I at Sivakasi Commercial Tax office. The money was received by A-2 while he was in the seat. After completion of trap, the mahazar was preferred at CTO No-IV. Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted on this score.

12. Point for consideration:-

“Whether the Court below is right in considering the prosecution evidence sufficient to whole the accused guilty”?

13. P.W.3 who claims himself as Manager of Priya Herbals have not produced any documents that he was authorized to represent Priya Herbals before the Commercial Tax Office. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 are notices issued by the Commercial Tax Department to Priya Herbals to attend the enquiry and produce the accounts relating to the year 2003-2004. These two notice are dated 18.11.2004 and 20.12.2004 respectively. While these notice were served on Priya Herbals, one Jeyasingh was the Commercial Tax Officer No.I. The First accused has succeeded Jeyasingh only on 31.07.2005. The said Jeyasingh examined as P.W.5. He has confirmed initiating action to collect tax and penalty from Priya Herbals who have failed to submit the annual accounts.

14. Ex.P18 and Ex.P.19 which are the assessment registers pertaining to Priya Herbals are identified by P.W.5. Ex.P.3 is the notice dated 10.06.2005 issued to Priya Herbals by the Office of the Commercial Tax Officer No.I, Sivakasi. In this notice it is specifically stated that Priya Herbals despite three summons had not produced their account to verify the declared turn over. Therefore, they are liable to pay 12% tax for the declared turn over and another 12% tax equal amount for willful non-production of the account besides at 5%. Opportunity has been given to Priya Herbals to file his objections if any to the proposed notice. P.W.3 who claims to be Depot Manager of Priya Herbals alleges in his complaint that one Selvakumar demanded Rs.3,000/- to ignore the said notice and to accept their account.

15. The prosecution case therefore falls to ground on three points. First there is no document to show either P.W.3 or Priya Herbals has availed the opportunity to file the objection within 15 days, on receipt of the demand marked as Ex.P.3. There is no evidence to show that the accounts were presented to A-1 on the day of trap and neither P.W.3 nor any representatives of the Priya Herbals had explained why the additional tax should not be imposed as found in Ex.P.3. The last point is that if really the de facto complainant has met the accused, he need not have wrongly mentioned the name of the first accused as Selvakumar.

16. Further, this Court finds that the trap laying officer before registering the complaint, is supposed to make a discreet enquiry about the complaint as well as the public servant against whom the complaint lodged. If really, P.W.10 had made some preliminary enquiry, he would have found that there is no CTO by name Selvakumar in Sivakasi Commercial Tax Office. Because P.W.10 has not made any preliminary enquiry, he has registered a case against one Selvaraj who is a non-existing person and proceeded with trap arrangement.

17. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that on 18.08.2005 A-1 demanded Rs.2,000/- to process the accounts of Priya Herbals, fails.

18. Regarding the incident took place on the day of trap, i.e., on 23.08.2005 P.W.3 and P.W.4 had deposed that the account books were submitted to A-1 and as per directions of A-1 the tainted money was given to A-2, who received the money and counted it and kept it in his pocket. Neither the accounts book nor the shirt in which A-2 alleged to have kept the tainted money, are recovered.

19. Further even according to the prosecution, the hands of A-1 was subjected to Phenolphthalein only after he was asked to handle the tainted money. Therefore, the presence of phenolphthalein in the hands of A-2 will not give a prima facie impression that he handles the bribe money with knowledge that it is illegal gratification to do an act in favour of de facto complainant.

20. Considering the severe lapse in the investigation and lacuna in the prosecution witnesses, merely on presumption under Section 20 of P.C. Act, these appellants cannot be convicted.

21. The prosecution at all stages had failed to prove beyond doubt that A-1 demanded bribe on 18.08.2005 or A-1 demanded and obtained Rs.2,000/- on 23.08.2005 through his assistant A-2. The prosecution has to prove that A-2 had in his possession consciously the tainted money. When the prosecution evidence is defective right from proving factum of demand, acceptance and recovery, merely by invoking Section 20 of P.C.Act, the appellants cannot be convicted. The trial Court has not tested the prosecution witnesses properly. The contradictions and lapse in the case of the prosecution enures the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellants. Hence, these appeals are liable to be allowed.

22. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants in Special C.C.No.5 of 2006 dated 09.04.2010 vide its Judgment dated 09.04.2010 is hereby set aside. Fine amount shall be refunded to the appellants. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled.

G. Sithivinayagamoorthy v. State Through The I...