KANAGARAJ Vs. STATE THROUGH DSP VIGILANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused in Special C.C.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-special judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, Pudukottai who was prosecuted along with one Ameer Ali for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, found guilty of the said offences and sentenced:- 1) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a sum of Rs.2000.00 as fine with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and 2) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.3000.00 with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months for the other offence, namely the offence under Section 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Judgment of the trial Court dated 03.08.2005, has come forward with the present appeal against his conviction and sentence. By the said impugned Judgment dated 03.08.2005 while convicting and sentencing the appellant (first accused) as aforesaid, the learned trial Judge chose to hold Ameer Ali, who figured as the second accused, not guilty of any one of the above said offences and acquitted him. For the sake of convenience, the appellant shall be referred to as first accused and the Ameer Ali, who has been acquitted, shall be referred to as second accused.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution that can be discerned from the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced on the side of the prosecution, can be summarized as follows:

(3.) THE learned trial Judge after hearing the arguments advanced on both sides, considered the evidence and upon such consideration, found the second accused not guilty of the offences for which he was prosecuted and acquitted him and at the same time, found the first accused guilty of both the offences with which he stood charged, convicted him and sentenced him to the punishments as indicated supra. The said judgment of the trial Court is challenged by the first accused both in respect of his conviction and sentence on various grounds set out in the petition of appeal.