M A J MOULANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner/A2 has preferred the instant Criminal Original Petition praying for passing of an order by this Court to call for the entire records in Spl. C.C. No. 5 of 2006 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal and to quash the same. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner/A2 was charged in respect of an alleged offence under Sections 8 r/w. 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Respondent/Complainant filed charge sheet in Salem Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Crime No. 2/AC/2005 under Section 8 r/w. 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of A. 1 to A.7 on 19.04.2006.

(2.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that when the Petitioner was doing his B.Sc. Course (Hotel Management), the Respondent/Police inspected the Regional Transport Office, Namakkal by means of surprise check on 07.01.2005 and 08.01.2005 respectively and seized Rs. 1,44,106/ - including the unclaimed amount of Rs. 37,346/ - together with certain documents from inside the Regional Transport Office. After seizure of the said money and documents, the Respondent/Police arrested the Petitioner and six others on suspicion that they are Touts/Agents/Brokers with intend to get personal benefits by bribing the officials of the Regional Transport Office.

(3.) THE Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the allegation made against the Petitioner/A2 was that the Respondent/Police found an amount of Rs. 1,050/ - and six documents in his Handbag. But no seizure was effected from him. However, the Respondent/Police obtained the statement from P.W. 7 as if he handed over the money Rs. 300/ - to the Petitioner for his service for handing over the said documents and bribing the RTO officials. If it was so, then, P.W. 7 alone committed the aforesaid offence and not the Petitioner.