STATE Vs. RAMADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal by the the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras made in C.C.No.36 of 1992 wherein the respondent/accused stood charged and tried for the offences under Sections 12 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: P.W.1 Natarajan, Joint Transport Commissioner (i/c), Madras-5 accorded sanction under Section 19(1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the prosecution of the respondent Tmt. Ramadevi Jalasundaram for the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under Ex.P1. P.W.2 Kuppusamy asked the accused for a permit in respect of his auto rickshaw. At that time, the accused directed P.W.2 to get a certificate from a notary public regarding his name. When P.W.2 produced the said certificate on 4.9.1991, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.200/- as bribe. Thereafter P.W.2 not willing to give bribe decided to report the same to the concerned authorities. Accordingly, P.W.2 gave Ex.P4 report on 5.9.1991, on the basis of which, the concerned D.S.P. called the Inspector by name Jagannathan and two others by name Munitsha and Mohan, and introduced them to P.W.2. P.W.2 handed over the currency notes amounting to Rs.200/- to the said Inspector. The required test was conducted. The Inspector handed over the said currency notes to P.W.2 and told him to give it to the accused on demand. When P.W.2 went to Regional Transport Office and met the accused, the accused again demanded bribe. P.W.2 gave the said currency notes to the accused and the accused received the same on 5.9.91 and put the bribe money in her black colour hand bag. Besides that, she asked P.W.2 to give bribe to one Karunanidhi. Immediately P.W.2 went outside and gave signal to the vigilance authorities. The Inspector asked P.W.2 to stand outside. When, the Inspector enquired the accused as to whether she received the bribe, she accepted the same. Then, he conducted a test and it was proved positive. Then the Inspector examined the bag of the accused, and the accused gave acceptable reasons for the remaining moneys available in the bag. Hence, he handed over the bag with remaining amounts to the accused. Then, the accused was told to take the said currency notes, and the Inspector compared the same with the particulars available with him and found correct. The Inspector recovered a small purse and obtained the affidavit of P.W.2 and records pertaining to P.W.2. A mahazar was prepared in that regard and P.W.3 Munsifshah signed in the same. Then the Inspector made a search in the house of the accused, and no material was found. P.W.5 Sundarrajan gave a report under Ex.P.11. P.W.6 Narasimhan, who was working as R.T.O, narrated the incident. P.W.7 Savarimuthu, was present at the time of the said test. P.W.9 Jagannathan, Inspector, received Ex.P4 report, investigated the same, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The case in Crime No.8/AC/93/AC was handed over to P.W.10, Subramaniam for further investigation. He enquired P.W.9 and the accused and recorded their statements. On completion of the investigation, P.W.10 filed a charge sheet on 1.4.1992 against the accused after getting sanction.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked 14 exhibits and 6 material objects. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the accused was questioned under S.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and the accused denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined. After considering the rival submissions and scrutiny of the available materials, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused, which is under challenge.