T.R.Narayanan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06/01/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALA CRL MP(MD)No.170 of 2026 in CRL A(MD)No.16 of 2026 T.R.Narayanan ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy.
Crime No.22/2011.
... Respondent PRAYER :- To Suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner in Spl CC No.14/2014 dated 15.12.2025 on the file of Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cum District and Sessions Court, Karur and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending disposal of criminal appeal. For Petitioner : V.P.Rajan For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to suspend the sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti 1/7
Corruption Cum District and Sessions Court, Karur, in C.C.No.14 of 2014 dated 15.12.2025, and enlarge the petitioner on bail pending the disposal of the appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was employed as Assistant Engineer (O&M), TNEB at Chinnapanaiyur, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. The defacto complainant is a retired Regional Manager of IOB, managing Kasi Rice, Flower and Oil Mill. The electric wires of TNEB supplying service connection No.247 in the said mill were hanging between two poles, thereby endangering human life. Hence, on 13.05.2011, the defacto complainant approached the petitioner and submitted an application for installation of electric pole. He remitted a sum of Rs.500/- as estimated cost and obtained a cash receipt for the same. Thereafter, the defacto complainant met the petitioner on various occasions and remitted the required estimated costs and obtained cash receipts to that effect. Due to a lack of manpower, the installation work was not completed. Hence, the defacto complainant preferred a complaint before the respondent, alleging that the petitioner had demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification for the installation of the electric pole.
2/7
3. Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and 25 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. Five material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. On the side of the accused, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and four documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 and one document was marked through Court as Ex.C1.
4. The learned Special Judge for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cum District and Sessions Court, Karur, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments on both the sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2025, convicting the petitioners as follows:
S.No.
Offence Sentence Section 7 of PC Act 3 years R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo 9 months S.I Section 13(2) of PC Act 3 years R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo 9 months S.I Further, it was ordered that the sentences of imprisonment would run concurrently.
3/7
5. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal along with the above Miscellaneous Petition seeking suspension of sentence.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there are several incongruities in the prosecution case and further there are contradictions in material particulars in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that the petitioner has already paid the fine amount before the Principal Sessions Court, Karur.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that there are enough materials available on record against the petitioner and hence, he strongly opposed the grant of suspension of sentence.
8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the materials available on record.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out the incongruities, inconsistencies and contradictions in material particulars 4/7
in the prosecution's case, which establish that there are certain arguable points in the criminal appeal. However, the criminal appeal is not likely to be taken up for final hearing in the near future. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner herein is entitled for the relief of suspension of sentence.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended pending disposal of the appeal with the following directions: (i) the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Court for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Cum District and Sessions Court, Karur.
(ii) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Trial Judge may obtain a copy of any valid identity proof to ensure their identity ; 5/7
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the trial Court once in a month i.e., on the first working day of every English calendar month at 10.30 a.m., until further orders and if he is not able to appear before the trial Court on any day, he shall make arrangements to file an application under Section 317 of Cr.P.C (355 of BNSS) 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.
06.01.2026 SN TO 1.The Special Court for Vigilance and Anti Corruption Cum District and Sessions Court, Karur.
2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy.
3.The Principal Sessions Court, Karur.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
N.MALA,J Sn CRL MP(MD) No.170 of 2026 in CRL A(MD)No.16 of 2026 06/01/2026 7/7