G ASHOK KUMAR Vs. MURUGESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 and A-2 are the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.617 and 626 of 2001 respectively and they have come forward with these appeals challenging their conviction and sentence passed by the learned VII Additional Judge, Chennai, made in C.C.No.14 of 1998 by the judgment dated 12.7.2001 convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to "the Act") read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing them to one year rigorous imprisonment each and also with a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting both the accused for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and sentencing them to one year rigorous imprisonment imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. The learned trail Judge ordered the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) A-1 was working as Inspector of Police attached to K.K.Nagar police station and A-2 was working as police constable attached to the same police station. The charges against accused 1 and 2 is that by misusing their official position A-1 said to have demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- from P.W.2 for the purpose of relieving her from a murder case and in pursuance of such demand on 01.12.1995 with an intention of obtaining illegal gratification, A-2 received a sum of Rs.6,000/- for A-1 and thereby they have committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act read with Section 34 I.P.C.

(3.) WHEN the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against each of them, both A-1 and A-2 have stated that they are false and contrary to the facts and they have further stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. A-1 has also filed a written statement and in that statement, it is stated by A-1 that the complaint given by P.W.2 is a motivated one. It is further stated that on 01.12.1995 while he was verifying certain documents, P.W.2 came there with a cover stating that she has brought a petition. As A-1 was busy with other work he has instructed P.W.2 to hand over the said cover to A-2 and within five minutes, the raiding party came inside his room and he was shocked while P.W.9 enquired him. He has stated that he has not made any demand of bribe from P.W.2. The police had not accepted his version and foisted the false case against him. The defence has not chosen to examine any witness on their side but marked Exs.D.1 to D.5.