A M THIRUVENGADAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions are under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code for expunging the following remarks which had been made by the learned Special Judge and District Magistrate of North Arcot at Vellore in Special Case Nos. 2 and 3 of 1972: Before parting with the Judgment the following observations are made. Combination of misappropriation and corruption the subject-matters of this case and the other case disposed of today is horrible in a Government servant in the cadre of a Tahsildar which is a pivotal post at the Taluk level as the area of his activities extends to almost all the branches of citizen's life in a welfare State. The accused has been acquitted giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt that has arisen regarding the prosecution version in the appreciation of evidence though there is well-founded suspicion to indicate that he rendered bad services to the Government by betraying the confidence reposed by it in him in appointing him as Tahsildar, a responsible post.

(2.) IN Special Case No. 2 of 1972, there were three charges against the petitioner. One was that as a public servant he took gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, an offence punishable under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. The second was for criminal misconduct as a public servant in the discharge of his official duty by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtaining for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, an offence punishable Under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The third charge was for criminal misconduct in the discharge of official duty by habitually accepting or agreeing to accept or attempting to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161. Indian Penal Code, punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) IN Special Case No. 3 of 1972 the only charge that was framed was for criminal misconduct in the discharge of his official duty by dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating or otherwise converting for his own use property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allowing any other person so to do, an offence punishable under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.