(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS praying to call for the records in Crl.MP.no.2391 of 2023 dated 07.11.2024 in Special CC.no.3 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge (for P.C.Act), Puducherry and to set aside the same.

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of BNSS praying to call for the records in MP.No.1 of 2024 dated 07.11.2024 in Special CC.no.3 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge (for P.C.Act), Puducherry and to set aside the same.)

Common Order:

1. The criminal revision case in Crl.RC.No.2328 of 2024 has been filed against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.2391 of 2023 in Spl.CC.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge (for P.C.Act), Puducherry, thereby dismissing the petition filed to discharge the petitioner from all the charges. The criminal revision case in Crl.RC.No.299 of 2025 has been filed against the order passed in MP.No.1 of 2024 dated 07.11.2024 in Spl.CC.No.3 of 2023 on the file of the learned Special Judge (for P.C.Act), Puducherry, thereby dismissing the petition filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add witnesses LW2, LW4 and LW5 as accused 2 to 4 in Spl.CC.No.3 of 2023.

2. The case of the prosecution is that information was received that a video had been posted in WhatsApp social media network running for a duration of 2.50 minutes showing the accused receiving some cash from a person and keeping the same in his table drawer to his right. On seeing the said video, on 03.04.2016, the Inspector of Police concerned submitted a report to his higher officials stating that on 01.04.2016, a complaint was received by registered post from one, Kumar alleging that he was working as Supervisor for two months under a Civil Contractor i.e. Senthilkumar. Thereafter, he failed to pay salary to him. On 23.02.2016, when the said Kumar along with his family members went to the house of the said Senthil Kumar and asked about his salary, for which the said Kumar and his family members were abused by the said Senthil Kumar and they also were threatened by them with dire consequences. Further, they were abused by using their caste name since the said Kumar and his family members belong to Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, he requested to take appropriate action. Further, it was stated that already complaint was lodged before the Protection of Civil Rights Cell, Puducherry and a copy was marked to the said police station. However, no action was taken by PCR Cell. Therefore, direction was issued to the petitioner to conduct enquiry on the complaint received from the said Kumar. Therefore, the petitioner called them for enquiry and during the enquiry, the said Senthil Kumar had admitted that the said Kumar had worked as Supervisor for a period of two months and his work was found to be unsatisfactory. Therefore, he himself voluntarily quit the job on 22.02.2016. During the enquiry, the said Senthil Kumar also had agreed to settle the issue amicably and was ready to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-. During the settlement of the said money, the said Senthil Kumar had videographed the same and posted in the WhatsApp social media network. The video also disclosed that the petitioner was found to be receiving a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the said Senthil Kumar unaccountably to settle the issue. During the enquiry, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory in nature. Therefore, the Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station, Puducherry lodged complaint before the respondent. On the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.2 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court in Spl.CC.No.3 of 2023. Even at the stage of FIR, the petitioner approached this Court to quash the FIR and the same was dismissed by this Court. After trial court having been taken cognizance on the final report submitted by the respondent, the petitioner filed petition under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. to get discharge from all the charges. It was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the criminal revision case in Crl.RC.No.2328 of 2024 has been filed. Simultaneously, the petitioner also filed petition under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add LW2, LW4 and LW5 as accused in Spl.CC.No.3 of 2023. It was also dismissed and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed Crl.RC.No.299 of 2025.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner raised so many grounds to discharge him from the charges, the trial court failed to consider the same for discussion. The respondent without obtaining any permission from the trial court, invoked the provision under Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. The voice test under Section 311-A cannot be tested and it is nothing but temporary patchwork to make the statute effective and valuable and to sub-serve social process and to make judicial interpretation executable. He would further submit that even as per the Audio record, there is a count for 30 times and as such, the petitioner received only a sum of Rs.30,000/- to settle the same to LW4. There is no record to show that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.40,000/- in order to settle the amount to LW4. He further submits that LW2, LW4 & 5 have made their statement under Section 161 and also Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Even as per their own statements, they committed offence under Section 24 of Prevention of Corruption Act since they are abettors and they cannot be investigated and tried separately. There are materials very much available even as per their own statement to attract the offence under Section 24 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Even then, the respondent failed to implead them as accused. They categorically admitted that LW2 has given a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe to settle the issue between LW2 and LW3, for which LW4 and LW5 had helped in giving their digital devices and advised LW2 to record and post the same in the WhatsApp social media. When LW2 failed to lodge complaint, the defacto complainant conducted discrete preliminary enquiry and submitted his discrete report. Thereafter, on the written complaint, the respondent registered FIR.

                   3.1 He further submits that after repealing 1988 Act in the year 2018, the old Section 24 has been repealed and as such, the general law of abetment of offence available under Indian Penal Code was made applicable to all the offences, as such if anyone dares to bribe any public servant without recourse to vigilance police, they shall be strictly prosecuted. Therefore, amended act has made a shift to catch bribegivers rather than bribe receivers as givers are many in number than the receivers and the respondent grossly failed to appreciate the provision under Section 24 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the prosecution failed to apply it as against LW2, LW4 & LW5. Section 8 of the amended act deals with the offence relating to bribing of a public servant and it states that, any person who gives or promises to give an undue advantage to another person or persons with intention to induce a public servant to perform improperly a public duty or to reward such public servant for the improper performance of public duty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both, provided the person so compelled shall report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage. Therefore, in the case on hand, LW2, LW4 & LW5 did not inform to the respondent about the compulsion of bribe to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Bhupinder Singh Patel Vs. CBI reported in (2008) 3 JCC 1902, and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 3592.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused all the materials placed before this Court.

5. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and also on the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor(Pondy) appearing for the respondent, it is revealed that admittedly LW3 had worked under LW2 as Supervisor. However, LW3 failed to satisfy LW2 and as such, he was not paid salary for two months. Thereafter, the entire family of LW3 went to the house of the LW2 and asked for salary. LW2 abused them in filthy languages and called them by using their caste name. Therefore, LW3 already lodged complaint before PCR Cell, Puducherry and a copy of the complaint was also marked to Inspector of Police, Orleanpet Police Station. In fact, the said complaint was recorded in the general diary on 01.04.2016. On the said complaint, the Inspector of Police directed the petitioner to conduct enquiry by 02.04.2016. Accordingly, the petitioner called LW2 and LW3 for enquiry. During the enquiry, LW2 admitted that LW3 had worked under him and he was not paid salary for two months. Therefore, LW3 voluntarily quit his job and asked for his salary. During the enquiry, LW2 had agreed to settle the issue amicably and was also willing to pay the salary amount to LW3 through the petitioner. During the settlement of the said money, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the settlement. Therefore, LW2 and LW3 planned to videograph the payment of the money through electronic gadget. LW4 and LW5 assisted LW2 to record while making payment. It revealed that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.10,000/- to settle the issue between LW2 and LW3. Subsequently the said videograph was uploaded in WhatsApp social media. Enquiry was conducted with the petitioner and his explanation was not satisfactory. Therefore, complaint was lodged before the respondent and FIR was registered. The statement recorded from LW2 to LW5 also revealed that LW2 gave a sum of Rs.30,000/- to LW3 in order to settle the issue. For settling the said issue, the petitioner who is being a public servant demanded and received a sum of Rs.10,000/- as bribe from LW2. The report of the forensic sciences laboratory, Chennai was also received and it was confirmed that the video is genuine and the audio is the integral part of the respective video. In the conversation between LW2 and the accused, the voices are of the same individuals. Therefore, there are materials very much available to frame the charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

6. The ground raised by the petitioner, with regards to Section 311-A of Cr.P.C. to obtain necessary judicial permission for obtaining the voice sample, cannot be countenanced for the reason that the voice conversation between LW2 and the petitioner was recorded in the presence of revenue officials by the police photographer and videographer. It was sent for comparison and expert opinion to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The required facility was not available at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and as such, it was once again sent to Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chennai for expert opinion regarding originality of the video recording aired in the WhatsApp social media. The report categorically stated that the video is genuine and the audio is the integral part of the respective video. Therefore, the procedure was followed by the investigation agency within the parameters and final report was filed. Further, the specific contention of the petitioner with regards to impleadment of LW2, LW4 & LW5 as accused under Section 24 of Prevention of Corruption Act is baseless. The provision under the said Section 24 protects the bribe givers from prosecution under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act for statements made in proceedings against corrupt public servants, thereby encouraging them to expose corruption. LW2 acted as whistleblower reporting the bribe demand and providing evidence to the respondent. LW4 and LW5 facilitated the recording and exposure of the transaction, aiding in the investigation. Therefore, their actions fall under the purview of the protected cooperation and not abetment. It is also revealed that from time to time, it was informed to the defacto complainant and immediately after enquiry, LW2 to LW5 planned to videograph the transaction on settlement. Therefore, there is absolutely no circumstances to implead LW2, LW4 and LW5 as accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no valid complaint under Section 306 of Cr.P.C. or under Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

7. In fact, the provision under Section 306 of Cr.P.C, which deals with the procedure for granting pardon to accomplice to secure their testimony, does not apply in this case for the reason that individuals i.e. LW2, LW4 and LW5 are not accomplices to the crime but witnesses who assisted in exposing the corrupt practices of the accused. The statement of LW2 with regards to payment of bribe clearly corroborated with the statement of LW4 and LW5. Their statements are also supported by material evidence including digital proof of the transaction. Therefore, their statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. are legally valid and were duly corroborated by independent evidence including the forensic report and material objects. Hence, the prosecution established prima facie evidence against the petitioner including the digital recordings of the bribe demand and acceptance. Further, LW2 was forced by the accused to give bribe to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for settling the dispute between LW2 and LW3. Due to the pressure exerted by the accused, LW2 had drawn an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the Bank of Karnataka, Puducherry through a cheque for a sum of Rs.30,000/- and paid to the accused for settling the wage issue in favour of LW3. The rest of the amount to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was given to the accused separately as demanded and the same was captured by LW2 through mobile phone of LW5 with the knowledge of the LW4. Therefore, their actions are protected under Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The provision under Section 24 is applicable only when the bribe giver is compelled to act as witness against the bribe receiver.

8. As state supra, the action of LW2 appears to have been voluntary and aimed at exposing corruption rather than abetting the offence. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not helpful to the case on hand. Further, materials are very much available on record to frame charges and to proceed with trial against the accused. As such, the grounds raised by the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage and those are material for trial by letting in evidence. Materials on records clearly disclose the commission of offence to frame charges against the accused. The statement of witnesses are clear that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe, fulfilling the ingredients of Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the trial court rightly dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner to discharge the petitioner from all the charges and to add LW2, LW4 and LW5 as accused in the present case. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders. As such, both the criminal revision cases fail.

9. In view of the above discussion, both the criminal revision cases are dismissed. The trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.