J.Sethuraman v. State Rep.By, Deputy Superintendent Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL MP NO. 22877 OF 2025 IN CRL A No. 1848 of 2025 J.Sethuraman S/o.Janakiraman, D.No.29A, Bharath Street, Sreenivasan Nagar, Balaiah Garden, Madipakkam, Chennai-600 091.
Petitioner/Accused Vs State rep.by, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai city, Alandur, Chennai-16.
Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 praying to suspend the sentence imposed by Judgment dated 17.11.2025 in C.C.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai 104 and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above criminal appeal. 1/7
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Kalaiazhagan For Respondent :
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner by the judgment dated 17.11.2025 in C.C.No.31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai 104 and release the petitioner on bail pending disposal of the above criminal appeal.
2. The petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.31 of 2013 was convicted by the Trial Court by the judgment dated 17.11.2025 for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act') and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment, for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act and for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, sentenced to undergo two years 2/7
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner filed Crl.A.No.1848 of 2025 before this Court along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail. 3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is an Accounts Supervisor in I.T. Corridor, TNEB. The case projected against the petitioner is that the petitioner demanded a bribe of Rs.2,50,000/- to reduce the audit shortfall amount of Rs.8,00,000/- in favour of PW2, which is due to the TNEB department. The de-facto complainant/PW2's property situated in Adyar Division and the petitioner has got no control over that division.
On a wrong premises the complaint lodged against the petitioner and the trap was thrust on the petitioner. The petitioner has got no authority to deal with Adyar Corridor. Ex.P18, the letter submitted by PW7 confirms the same. Ex.P25 is the audit file, which is said to have been recovered from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Accounts Officers of I.T. Corridor division, Adyar division and other Corridor divisions are working in the same floor.
electricity service connection pertains to Adyar Division, where the petitioner not worked, which has been projected against the petitioner. The trial Court failed to consider these aspects. Further the petitioner raised specific points to the witnesses referring to certain documents, the same not produced. On the other hand, the trial Court on the sole ground that amount recovered form the petitioner, convicted the petitioner. The petitioner has got no authority to deal with the file. He further submitted that the trial Court already suspended the sentence of the petitioner. Hence, prayed for granting suspension of sentence to the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW13 examined and Exs.P1 to P29 marked and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3 produced. On the side of the defence, DW1 examined and Exs.D1 to D20 marked. The Trial Court on the evidence of witnesses and the materials produced had rightly convicted the petitioner. He fairly submitted that the trial Court already suspended the sentence of the 4/7
petitioner.
5.Considering the fact that petitioner is aged about 62 years and having age related health ailments and there are arguable points involved in this appeal and it would take some time for the appeal to be taken up for final hearing and also the fact that fine amount paid and the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner already suspended by the trial Court, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, the substantive sentence of Imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is suspended till the disposal of the above appeal and the petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail, on condition that he shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 7.Further, the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court once in three months at 10.30 a.m. on the first working day of the month, until the disposal of 5/7
the criminal appeal and if he is not able to appear before the Trial Court on that day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Trial Court on any other day in lieu of the date of his absence as directed by the Trial Court.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is ordered. 28-11-2025 (2/2) rsi To 1.The Special Judge, Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai 104.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Chennai city, Alandur, Chennai-16.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
6/7
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi CRL MP NO. 22877 OF 2025 IN CRL A No. 1848 of 2025 28.11.2025 (2/2) 7/7