PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. G SADAGOPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C. A. No. 69 of 1951, reversing the conviction and sentence of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in SC No. 55 of 1951.

(2.) THE facts are : The respondent G. Sadagopan was the Head Clerk of the District Engineer's Office, Podanoor, South Indian Railway. On information received that this Sadagopan was a bribe -taker, investigation was started by the Special Police Establishment, Madras. It is enough for the purpose of this case that this Special Police Establishment, Madras, unearthed 3 instances against him, viz., that he accepted on 1.5.1950 at Podanur Rs. 30/ - from K. Rajgopal for transferring him from Udumalpet; accepted in January 1950 Rs. 25/ - from Swami for giving a permanent vacancy and demanded in or about November 1949 from Sri Narasimhalu at Podanur 20 per cent. of the travelling allowance bills for passing the same. On the foot that each of these accusations which constituted an offence under Section 161, I.P.C. amalgamated together made up the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, this accused was tried before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on these instances of bribe -taking, constituting an offence under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 161, I.P.C. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, who carefully went into the matter found that the prosecution had affirmatively and satisfactorily proved beyond doubt the accusation relating to the acceptance of a bribe of Rs. 30/ - from Rajagopal (P. W. 1) on 1.5.1950 for transferring him to Podanur and that in regard to the other two counts, held that he was not inclined to hold that the prosecution had so established the accused's guilt. Therefore, he convicted the accused for the offence proved under Section 161, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(3.) THERE was an appeal therefrom and the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, did not go into the merits of the case but acquitted the accused on two short grounds, viz., that firstly Ex. P. 4 cannot be accepted as a secondary evidence of the previous sanction of the General Manager of the South Indian Railway, and now the General Manager of the Southern Railway, and secondly that when the charge was for criminal misconduct under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act and the trial Court found that two of the counts had not been satisfactorily proved and the charge of criminal misconduct failed, resultantly the accused could not be convicted on the count proved under Section 161, I.P.C. but must have been acquitted in entirety.