IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1325 OF 2002

P. Subramanian        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

The appellant, along with accused K.A. Dhandayuthapani, was convicted

by  the  Trial  Court  under  Section  7  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988

[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] and each one of them was sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each; in

default,  to  undergo further imprisonment for a period of  one month.   They were

further  convicted  under  Section  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section  13(2)  of  the  Act  and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine

of  Rs.500/-  each; in default,  to undergo further imprisonment for a period of two

months.  Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.  On appeal

being preferred, the High Court acquitted accused K.A. Dhandayuthapani of both the

charges.  So far as the appellant is concerned, he was acquitted of the charge under

Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act but his conviction under Section 7

of the Act has been upheld.  Hence, this appeal by special leave.

...2/-

- 2 -  

Having  heard  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  parties  and

perused the records, we are of the view that the Trial Court and the High Court have

convicted the appellant  under Section 7 of  the Act  upon threadbare discussion of

evidence and no interference by this Court is called for.

The criminal appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.

Bail bonds of the appellant, who is on bail, are cancelled and he is directed

to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, March 19, 2009.