K. DEVARAJAN AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal appeals have been directed against the convictions and sentences, dated 17.09.2004, passed in Calendar Case No. 3 of 2002, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, No. I, Krishnagiri.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, by name, Samraj, is a resident of Narasipuram Village. For the purpose of augmenting his agricultural income, he decided to purchase a tractor and he applied for getting loan, from Dharmapuri Agricultural Bank. The concerned authority has directed him to execute a mortgage deed in respect of his lands. After making initial arrangements, he approached the first accused by name, Pachirajan, the then Sub -Registrar, Pennagaram, on 11.01.2001. The first accused has demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/ - as illegal gratification from the defacto complainant and also directed him to come to office on 12.01.2001 at about 2.00 p.m. The defacto complainant has met the Inspector of Police (P.W.11) and lodged a complaint. The Inspector of Police has made initial arrangements and subsequently directed the defacto complainant and the decoy witnesses, namely, Parthasarathy and Chinnappan, to go along with the defacto complainant to the office of the first accused and accordingly, on 12.01.2001, the defacto complainant has met the first accused in his office. The first accused has demanded Rs. 1000/ - from him for registering the mortgage deed. The first accused has also directed the defacto complainant to give tainted money to the second accused and accordingly, he has given the same. Further, the second accused has demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 50/ - from the defacto complainant and the same has also been given to him. After such occurrence, the defacto complainant has given pre -arranged signal and subsequently, the Inspector of Police and others have entered into the office of the accused and observed legal formalities and also seized tainted money. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, viz., P.W.12 has conducted investigation, examined connected witnesses and after his transfer, his successor in office, viz., P.W.13 has completed investigation and laid a final report on the file of the trial Court and the same has been taken on file in Calendar Case No. 3 of 2002.

(3.) The trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and also after considering the relevant materials, has framed first charge against both the accused under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has framed second charge against them under Sec. 13(2) r/w. Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same have been read over and explained to them. The accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.