THE STATE Vs. D. JANAKIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant/CBI challenging the judgment of acquittal passed against the respondents on 22.06.2012 in C.C. No. 6 of 2011 [Old C.C. No. 40/2010] on the file of Special Court for the Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution based on the prosecution witnesses is as follows:

(3.) CHALLENGING the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the appellant would submit that P.W. 2/Arul was allotted plot No. 125, Gandhi Nagar under financially weaker welfare scheme and for that a sale deed was given to him by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board on 19.03.2009. Since, the sale deed was not registered at the Sub -Registrar office within the prescribed period, the same was returned. Hence, P.W. 2/Arul gave an application dated 19.08.2009 for revalidation. While the said application was pending, the respondent/accused who was working as Revenue Inspector in Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, Vyasarpadi visited the house of P.W. 2/Arul and alleged to have demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/ - as illegal gratification to recommend the said application and asked him to bring the money on 17.09.2009 to his office. Hence, P.W. 2/Arul preferred Ex. P.2/Complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, the trap proceeding was initiated and after following the procedure, the respondent/accused was arrested and after completing the investigation, the chargesheet has been levelled against the accused. However, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused stating that P.W. 1/Duraikannu, who is the competent authority to accord sanction of the respondent/accused, had not applied his mind and so, the non -application of mind had vitiated the entire prosecution. But, the learned Government Advocate would submit that P.W. 1/Duraikannu in his evidence has categorically stated that he has perused the entire documents submitted before him and only thereafter, he had accorded sanction. So, the sanction is valid. The Trial Court has further held that the evidence of P.W. 2/Arul, P.W. 3/Divyanathan, P.W. 4/Jesudoss and P.W. 9/Shankar are contradictory to one another. But the learned Government Advocate would submit that the evidence of P.W. 2/Arul and P.W. 3/Divyanathan, shadow witness are corroborating with one another. The first demand was proved by the evidence of P.W. 2/Arul and P.W. 4/Jesudoss. In respect of the second demand made on 17.09.2009, the evidences of P.W. 2/Arul and P.W. 3/Divyanathan corroborate with each other. This factum was not considered by the Trial Court. Furthermore, the recovery was proved by the evidence of P.W. 9/Shankar, Trap Laying Officer. The evidence of P.W. 7/Kirubakaran and Ex. P.9/Forensic Report has proved that the phenolphthalein test is found to be positive. So, in view of all the above facts, the Trial Court ought to have convicted the respondent/accused, whereas the Trial Court had acquitted the respondent/accused. So, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is perverse and he prayed for setting aside the impugned order.