P SUBBARAJ Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 5 of 1988 pending on the file of the VIII Additional Special Judge, Madras.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Junior Accountant in the office of the Director of Ac counts, Tamil Nadu Postal Circle, situated in Commander-in-Chief Road, Madras and the respondent Police has filed a charge sheet against him for the offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of Indian Penal Code alleging that on or about 13.10.1987, he demanded and collected Rs. 500 from one Natarajan as illegal gratification promising to secure a job for him at P.W.D. Officer at Vellore, by abusing his position as a public servant.

(3.) The prosecution has been launched against at this petitioner on the complaint of one C.Natarajan. The said Natarajan has alleged that he is an educated unemployed person that he came to know through a person that this petitioner is capable of securing jobs for the unemployed, that therefore, he met him at Madras and explained his difficulties as he is unemployed, that the petitioner stated that he is having influence and connection with political personalities and it would not be difficult for him to secure a job for the complainant, that he obtained his bio-data and asked him to meet at intervals so that in the meanwhile, he could arrange for his job, that on 6.9.1987, he took him to Vellore P.W.D. office stating that he had arranged for a job as M.N.R. that making him to wait outside the P.W.D. Office, he alone entered into the office and came out within 10 minutes telling him that he had told the office to appoint him in the same office and the orders would be issued in two or three days and before that he should meet him at Madras. It is further stated in the complaint that he did not go to Madras to meet him, but even after two weeks as he did not receive the order of appointment he met the petitioner, who scolded him for not meeting him within two days as directed and unless he was paid Rs. 4,000 as bribe, he would not get the order of appointment from the P.W.D. office, that the complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs. 4,000 as he is very poor and thereafter the petitioner ultimately asked him to pay Rs. 500 within two days and pay the balance after the receipt of the orders for the job. The prosecution version is that on this complaint of the complainant, a trap was arranged and the petitioner was caught by the Inspector of Police when he received Rs. 500 from the complainant.