N M RAJENDRAN/ACCUSED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the convicted accused, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police (Crimes) attached to Saidapet Police Station, challenging the correctness and validity of the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Madras Division in C. C. No. 1 of 1991 on 18-12-1992 for the offences under Sections 384 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 7, 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and whereupon sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 384, I. P. C. , rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) (i) (ii) of the Prevention of corruption Act. However, no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

(2.) DURING March 1990 P. W. 2 having a shop at Burma Bazaar in Madras City engaged in the business of fancy goods, Video and audio cassettes and so on, was a resident at Door No. 23, Ayyasamy Pillai Lane in Old washermanpet, Madras. One Babu examined as P. W. 6 and another Nagarajan were the staff working under him in his shop. On the evening of 17-3-1990 at about 4 p. m. when P. W. 2 returned to his shop after his day's napping from his house, he found his shop locked and on enquiry he came to know that the police headed by the appellant, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saidapet, along with two police constables came and took them to the Police Station. Therefore P. W. 2 along with his relative by name Rajendran P. W. 3 had been to the station. When enquired in the Police Station, the appellant questioned him and told him that one accused by name Abdul Nazir had informed him that he had sold V. C. R.'s to p. W. 2 and for which, he replied in the negative. Then it was stated that the accused took P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 along with two police Constables to his house and found one V. C. R. kept upon the T. V. and took it away to the Police Station along with then, Having kept the said V. C. R. in the Police Station, it was alleged that the appellant had demanded a further sum of Rs. 3, 000/- for leaving P. W. 2 without any case. As P. W. 2 was not inclined to, he was threatened by the appellant. However, he had given an ultimatum to P. W. 2 that he should bring and pay sum of Rs. 1, 500/- on or before 7 p. m. on 20-3-1990 without fail. Having consented to the said demand, P. W. 2 along with P. W. 3 came to his house and arranged for the said amount with great difficulty

(3.) P. W. 12, the then Inspector of Police, attached to the saidapet Police Station, in Crimes Section corroborates the fact that the complaint was registered in Crime No. 337 of 1990 for the offence under Section 380, I. P. C. and on 7-3-1990 onwards, the appellant/accused took up investigation. The appellant/accused arrested Abdul Nazir on 21-3-1990 and forwarded him to judicial custody. However, he was stated that he has recovered nothing from him. Thereafter, on 15-6-1990 he has stated that upon the confession statement given by one Ravi alias Ravikumar to P. W. 9, the case properties concerned in Crime number 337 of 1990 were recovered by P. W. 9 in kodambakkam Police station Crime No. 115 of 1990 and then transferred the same to Saidapet Police Station and that consequently, the properties were sent to the court, followed by the final report against the said Ravi Kumar for the offence under Section 380 read with 75, I. P. C. From his investigation, Abdul nazir had not committed any offence and that therefore, he had sent a report to the court accordingly