K. P. THULASI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is facing trial in Special C.C.No.18 of 2024 for offence under Ss. 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, has filed this Quash Petition.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was serving as Revenue Inspector in Sholur Firka, The Nilgiris District, there was rampant illegal quarrying activity in and around the area and several Public Interest Litigations filed before this Court and this Court directed the CB-CID to investigate illegal quarrying and to take action against erring officials. Subsequently, the CB-CID recommended departmental action against 35 Revenue Officials including the two Revenue Divisional Officers, Assistant Director of Mines, Assistant Geologist, six Tahsildars, four Revenue Inspectors, six Village Administrative Officers, seven Motor Vehicle Inspectors and four Transport Department officials for failure to detect the illegal quarry. The petitioner played a pivotal role in collecting details and furnishing the same about the miners, thereby she earned wrath of illegal miners who are well and powerfully connected. The learned counsel further submitted that during the inspection in Sholur village, the petitioner found the defacto complainant attempting to break heavy rocks without proper license or permission in survey No.337/2 which belongs to Mrs.Sagundhala, sister-in- law of the defacto complainant. Annoyed over the objection, the defacto complainant in collusion with the respondent projected a trap case as though the petitioner demanded bribe of Rs.2,000.00 for issuance of enjoyment certificate for the property which he claims settled by his mother. On the complaint of the defacto complainant, a trap laid and the tainted money thrust on the petitioner. He further submitted that the alleged trap took place on 19/4/2010, but till filing of the charge sheet, the connected documents including the Recovery Mahazar and other seized documents not sent to the Trial Court earlier. The entire statements and documents filed before the Trial Court on 10/4/2012, hence the genuineness of such documents are doubtful. Added to it, the charge sheet filed in the year 2012, but till now no progress in the trial.

(3.) He further submitted that the respondent in collusion with the defacto complainant to brook vengeance laid a trap without properly ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint and the official witnesses forced to toe the line of the prosecution. The respondent failed to consider the motive and how the petitioner effectively curbed the illegal mining in the area and also objected for the defacto complainant in running illegal quarry. He further submitted that since the defacto complainant failed to appear before the Trial Court, the trial not progressed. The petitioner is not in service for more than 14 years and only on 11/12/2023, she was reinstated. At that time, it was found that the petitioner's Service Register and other documents reported lost, unavailable. The petitioner's entire career prospects damaged due to the false case projected by the defacto complainant. On the ground of delay alone, the case is liable to be quashed. Referring to the evidence of PW5, the decoy, the learned counsel submitted that PW5 examined on 29/8/2024, he was cross examined in detail but the prosecution failed to produce the trap money of Rs.2,000.00 and his evidence not completed. Hence, the learned counsel prays for quashing.