STATE REP BY INSPECTOR Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal, dated 30.4.2002, made in Spl. C.C. No. 5 of 1984, on the file of the learned Special Additional District Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences under Sections 120-B IPC and 5(2) read with 5(l)(e) of P.C. Act and 420 IPC and 5(2) read with 5(1)(e) and 5(3A) of P.C. Act and 5(2) read with 5(1 )(e) of P.C. Act and 420 and 109(12 counts) IPC and 5(3 A) of P.C. Act and 420 IPC and 116 (5 counts) IPC.

(2.) THE appellant herein has filed a charge sheet stating that A2/Respondent/Dr. Ramalingam was working as a Medical Officer at Nallur Primary Health Centre as a public servant and A1 was working as Medical Officer at Mangalampettai Primary Health Centre as a public servant and the accused 3, 4, 17 were working as workers in Dasal Stores Ware pipes and the accused 5 to 7 and 18 to 20 were working in Tannel Ceramics, Virudhachalam and A8 to A16 and A21 and A22 were working in Tannel Art Battery, Virudhachalam and these two Companies come under Tamil Nadu Ceramics Limited and A1 and A2 between November 1977 and January 1978 were conspiring together with the Approvers N.V. Devanathan and B.Ramasamy, abused their positions and issued medical prescriptions to A3 to A22 and their family members to obtain unlawful pecuniary gain as if that the Approvers had sold the medicines and prepared vouchers and the accused 3 to 22 had got the reimbursement amount and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC and 5(2) read with 5(1 )(e) of P.C. Act and 420 IPC.

(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after following the procedure framed necessary charges. A2 pleaded not guilty. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the Special Court placed the incriminating evidence (i.e.) P.W.1 to P.W.15, Exhibits P-1 to P-359 against the accused. On the side of the defence, the accused marked Exhibits D-1 and D-2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted A2 stating that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, against which, the State preferred an appeal.