VENKATACHALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the prosecution case relevant for deciding these appeals are as follows:-There were originally 5 accused in S. C. C. No. 206 of 1986. The charge against A1-Abdul Raheem was quashed by this Court as per its order in Crl. M. P. No. 12604/86 dated 7. 12. 1990. A5-Veeraraghavan expired, hence charge abated against him. The remaining A2, A3, A4 were arrayed as A1, A2 and A3. A1-Thangavelu is a public servant as Public Works Supervisor in Mettur Township Committee, Mettur, between 8. 10. 1979 to 31. 8. 1980. A2-Venkatachalam is a bus conductor turned contractor. A3-Ramasamy is the store keeper of the Mettur Township Committee during the relevant point of time. According to the prosecution, between 8. 10. 1979 to 31. 8. 1980, A1 to A3 have conspired together in purchasing alum, (gofhuk;) for cleaning drinking water supply to the public by the Mettur Township. A1 has called for tender for the supply of 15 tones of alum to the Mettur Township Committee through A2, who had supplied only 8 tones of alum instead of 15 tones. But A1 and A3 have made false entries in the records maintained by the Mettur Township Committee. Co-accused P. W. 20-Santhanam, who was the electrician of the Mettur Township has turned as approver in this case. Hence, the accused have been charged under Section 477 (A), 120 (B) and 420 IPC and under Section 5 (2) and 5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w 109 IPC.

(2.) THE case was taken on file by the Special Judge and First additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Selam and on appearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. , were furnished to the accused and when charges were framed and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court P. W. 1 to P. W. 27 were examined and Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 122 were marked.