N BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused was charged for offences punishable under Sec.7 as well as Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")- Criminal Appeal No.588 of 1996 is against conviction and Criminal Appeal No.455 of 1997 is against acquittal of one of the charges.

(2.) THE facts leading to the charges are as follows:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the act complained of by the prosecution is only a single act of receiving Rs.500, and that act cannot attract both Sec.7 as well as Sec.13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act. THE counsel contended that the offences under Secs.7 and 13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act are mutually exclusive. If a person is convicted under Sec.13(2) read with Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act, he cannot be convicted also under Sec.7 of the Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of this Court by Malai. Subramanian, J. in C.A.No.667 of 1995, dated 28.2.2002, where it has been held as follows: