PATTABIRAMAN Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first accused has come forward with this petition to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No. 7 of 2014 on the file of the first respondent.

(2.) AT the time of admission, by consent of both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) for first respondent, this Court has passed the order on merits. Notice to the second respondent/ de facto complainant is dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Revenue Divisional Officer and the de facto complainant/second respondent herein is the sand smuggler and he has involved in so many cases and hence, his evidence cannot be looked into. It is further submitted that as per the F.I.R., the first and second demands made by the petitioner were on 13.10.2014 and 14.10.2014 and the complaint was lodged on 15.10.2014. So there was a delay in preferring the complaint. After recovering tainted money, phenolphthalein test was conduced, which was ended in positive. So it is the duty of the trap laying officer to record the statement of accused as per the Rule 47, Manual of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti -Corruption, Tamil Nadu. In the case on hand, Rule 47 has not been followed and separate statement of the accused has not been recorded by the trap laying officer, which vitiates entire F.I.R. Therefore, he prayed for quashing the F.I.R. and to substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the following decisions:

(3.) RESISTING the same, learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) filed a detailed counter and submits that on the basis of the oral statement given by the second respondent, a case in Crime No. 7 of 2014 has been registered and in this connection, a trap proceedings was conducted on 15.10.2014. After recovering tainted money from A1, phenolphthalein test was conducted on both the hands of A1 and the same has been proved positive and the tainted money of Rs. 10,000/ - was seized. The additional document filed by the petitioner is to prove that the second respondent/ de facto complainant is sand smuggler, but that document came into existence only on 09.12.2014 that too after the occurrence had taken place. So no reliance can be placed on that document. It is further submitted that there was no delay in preferring the complaint, because in the trap proceedings, delay in preferring complaint is immaterial. As soon as the de facto complainant/second respondent approached the Vigilance and Anti -Corruption Wing, they followed the procedure and received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No. 7 of 2014. So the delay in preferring the complaint is not a ground for quashing the F.I.R. He has drawn attention of this Court through page Nos. 10 and 11 of the typed set of papers and submitted that they have questioned the accused about the unaccountable money, but he has not stated any plausible explanation, so whether the statement of accused has been recorded to be decided only after examining the trap laying officer at the time of trial and it is not a question of law, it is only a question of fact and that can be decided only at the time of trial and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.