KALIYAPERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of the judgment rendered in C.C. No. 9 of 1972 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Special Judge, Madurai. C.A. Nos. 234 of 1975 and 635 of 1975 are preferred by the accused Nos. 2 and 1, respectively challenging the correctness and validity of their convictions and sentences of R.I. for one year and imprisonment till the rising of the Court respectively imposed therefor. C. A. No. 626 of 1976 is preferred by the State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor on being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Judge acquitting accused Nos. 3 and 4 of all the charges with which they stood charged and tried, and accused No. 5 of the charge under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). C.A. No. 627 of 1976 is preferred" by the State under section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that the sentences imposed on accused Nos. 1 and 5 for the offences of which they are convicted by the the trial Court, are grossly inadequate and is not commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

(2.) BEFORE the trial Court, accused Nos. 1 to 5 were tried mainly for the offences:

(3.) THE next set of charges is against accused No. 5 who stands charged under charge Nos. 4 and 7 on the allegation that he, while functioning as a public servant, to wit, an Assistant Surgeon employed in the Government Erskine Hospital, Madurai, in pursuance of the abovesaid conspiracy, and in the course of the transaction, between 17th July, 1967 and 14th November, 1967, or thereabouts at Madurai, abused his official position as a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise issued false essentiality certificates in Form -A- (Exhibits P-5 and P-9), certifying that he had treated the claimant or his dependants, as the case may be, as detailed in the respective charges and received the amounts as specified in the charges in respect of the said alleged treatment and obtained pecuniary advantage of the amounts specified in the charges for himself and accused No. 1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 5 (2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Act.