Madras High Court acquits late TASMAC official K. Pattusamy in 2010 bribery trap case
The Madras High Court on 16 October 2026 acquitted K. Pattusamy, a TASMAC assistant manager in Cuddalore who died during the appeal, setting aside his 2016 conviction in a bribery case.
Key points
- The Madras High Court set aside the conviction of a TASMAC assistant manager in Cuddalore and confirmed his acquittal on the main bribery charge.
- The court held the prosecution did not prove any bribe demand; the official had been sentenced in 2016 to one year of rigorous imprisonment.
- The official died while the appeal was pending; the court ordered the Rs 1,000 fine, if paid, to be refunded to his legal heirs.
K. Pattusamy, who was Assistant Manager (Retail Vending) in the office of the District Manager of TASMAC, Cuddalore, has been acquitted by the Madras High Court in a 2010 bribery trap case. In a common judgment pronounced on 16 October 2026, the court set aside his conviction and dismissed the state's appeal against his acquittal on the main charge. He had died while the appeal was pending, and the court allowed it to continue because the conviction carried consequences for his family.
What Happened
According to the prosecution, as recorded in the judgment, the official demanded Rs 3,000 from a suspended TASMAC shop salesman to get the suspension revoked, and was caught by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption wing, Cuddalore, on 12 March 2010 with the tainted notes. The prosecution also alleged that he took Rs 1,000 from two other salesmen for their transfer requests.
On 21 April 2016, the Special Judge in Cuddalore acquitted him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding the demand not proved, but convicted him under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) over the Rs 1,000 and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,000.
The High Court held that there was no reliable evidence of any demand, and that recovery of money alone does not prove the offence. On the Rs 1,000, it noted that both salesmen turned hostile and denied paying anything, that no complaint or trap concerned that amount, and that a statement made in the custody of the trap team was not admissible. It called the finding of guilt perverse and unsustainable in law.
What It Means
The official stands acquitted of both charges. The court ordered that the fine, if paid, be refunded to his legal heirs on proper application. The judgment repeats that in a bribery case the prosecution must first prove a demand; possession of money by itself does not shift the burden to the accused. These were allegations that the court has held were not proved, and the accused stood presumed innocent throughout.
A citizen who faces a bribe demand from an official can report it to the state's vigilance or anti-corruption bureau. Oquilia's guide lists every state's helpline: https://www.oquilia.com/report-a-bribe
Source: High Court judgment
Sources & Citations
- High Court judgment — Madras High Court