STATE Vs. K M RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has come on appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act recorded by the Special Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpet in Special Case No.5/93.

(2.) THE respondent was tried on a charge that on 21.7.1992 at about 7.45 p.m., he received a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards bribe from P.W.2 for registering five sale deeds without collecting further stamp duty. THE learned trial Judge after looking into the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 12 and considering Exs.P.1 to P.29 and Exs.D1 to D5 and also M.Os.1 to 5 chose to acquit the accused. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) IT is the case of both sides that P.W.5 purchased the lands mentioned in Exs.P.2 to P.6 from P.W.4 and P.W.2 Manager of P.W.5 was involved in the registration of documents. P.W.2 in his substantive evidence has nowhere stated that the accused respondent demanded any amount by way of illegal gratification. The accused respondent being the Sub Registrar attached to Tiruporur Town was in-charge of the office of the Sub Registrar on the relevant dates. According to P.W.2, P.W.4 and his family members who were the executants of all the sale deeds were enquired by the respondent in his office as to whether they have received the sale amounts and he wanted a clearance from the income tax department, since the amount of sale exceeded Rs.2 lakhs. Since on the date of registration, the respondent found that the stamps have not been properly valued as per the guideline value and the income tax clearance certificate was also not produced, he kept the document pending and an amount of Rs.40/- was also received for the purpose of keeping the documents pending. P.W.2 goes to further say that the respondent informed him that an amount of Rs.35,000 may be required for the purpose of stamp duty. According to P.W.2, when this fact was informed to P.W.5, he gave the address of the respondent and directed P.W.2 to go and verify as to whether additional stamp duty has to be paid. Accordingly, P.W.2, came to the residence of the respondent and questioned him. The respondent replied that they have to pay the additional stamp duty and he was prepared to give receipt for the same. When this fact was informed, P.W.5 told P.W.2 that the respondent was not demanding the amount towards additional stamp duty, but he wants an amount to be paid to him by way of bribe. Therefore, P.W.5 directed P.W.2 to go and report the matter to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department. On the direction of P.W.5, Ex.P.13 report was given by P.W.2. Therefore, it is not the case of P.W.2 that the accused respondent at any point of time demanded bribe.