STATE Vs. C.RAJAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the State as against the order passed by the Special Court for the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Villupuram, dated 13.03.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2014 in Special Case No.69 of 2014, in discharging the respondent/accused under Section 227 Cr.P.C. from the charge under Sections 7, 9, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the respondent/accused was Village Administrative Officer (VAO) of Pandiankuppam Village from 12.10.2012 to 28.05.2013 and he was a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act during the relevant point of time. In the year 2011, the de-facto complainant Chandra approached the respondent/accused for patta transfer of property situated in Rayappanur Village, from the name of her husband to her name and in the name of her children, for which, the respondent/accused demanded bribe from the de-facto complainant, who paid Rs.17,000/- as instructed by one Balakrishnan to the respondent/accused. Thereafter, on 24.05.2013, again, the de-facto complainant met the respondent/accused at about 10 hours in his house at Chinnasalem for mutation of patta in respect of the left out portion of the land. It is the further case of the prosecution that the respondent/accused informed the de-facto complainant that he was not holding the post of VAO and one Mrs.Gunavathy was the new VAO for the said village. The respondent further stated that the said Gunavathy would adhere to his words and thus, he demanded Rs.7,000/- as illegal gratification for himself from the de-facto complainant as a motive or reward for inducing by exercise of personal influence over the VAO of the concerned jurisdiction Mrs.Gunavathy and also over the officials of Taluk Office for patta mutation. On the plea of the de-facto complainant Mrs.Chandra, expressing her inability to pay the amount, the respondent/accused reduced the amount to Rs.5,000/- and he also instructed her to meet him on 28.05.2013 at about 12 noon in his house. In pursuance of the respondent's earlier demand, on 28.05.2013 and in between 3.45 and 3.50 p.m. at Chinnasalem, in the house of the respondent/accused, the accused reiterated his earlier demand and obtained Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for himself from the de-facto complainant for processing and executing the work of patta mutation. Hence, it is the case of the prosecution that the respondent committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the course of the same transaction, at the same time and place, the respondent/accused being a public servant, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position, obtained the pecuniary advantage of Rs.5,000/- and hence, he has also committed the offences punishable under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the trial Court and the case was taken on file in Special Case No.69 of 2014. Thereafter, the respondent/accused filed discharge petition in Crl.M.P.No.339 of 2014 in Spl.C.No.69 of 2014. The trial Court allowed the discharge petition. Challenging the said discharge, the State has preferred this revision petition.

(3.) The trial Court allowed the discharge petition on the following reasons: