State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The Public Prosecutor v. N. Vijayakumar /accused.

Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying this Court to set aside the judgment dated 25.02.2014 made in Spl.C.C. No. 49 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai and convict and sentence the Respondent/Accused.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

M. Nirmal Kumar, J.:— Criminal Appeal coming upon for orders on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. M. Chandrasekaran, Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Appellant and of Mr. V. Kathirvelu, Senior counsel for Mr. K. Prabhu, Advocate for the respondent, this Court made the following order:

In compliance to the order of this Court dated 22.09.2020, the respondent/accused appeared before this Court through video conference. This Court having found respondent/accused guilty under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Questioned him as regards sentence.

2. When the respondent/accused was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he submitted that from the date of sentence i.e., on 15.09.2020 he is in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and taking treatment for various ailments. Hence, he pleaded leniency.

3. Mr. Jagadeesh Pandian [Enrollment No. 2956/2008], learned counsel for the respondent/accused relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of “State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bullar reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 and State Of Kerala v. M.M Manikantan Nair . reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 808”, submitted that as per Section 362 Cr.P.C., the Court cannot review its own judgment/order except to correct a clerical and arithmetical error and by way of clarification, it cannot reverse its own judgment/order.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State/Appellant submitted that the respondent/accused complained some discomfort and chest pain on 15.09.2020 while he was taken to prison. Hence, he was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he is taking treatment and through video conference, he is produced today.

5. The objections of the learned counsel for the respondent/accused are not sustainable in view of the order passed by this Court on 22.09.2020 in paragraph No. 11.

6. Considering the health condition of the respondent/accused, this Court deems fit to sentence the respondent/accused to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Earlier, this Court by judgment dated 28.08.2020, convicted the respondent/accused for offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after questioning him on 15.09.2020, sentenced him to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only), in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.