P SANJEEVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment in C. C. No. 206 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. The accused has been charged under section 7 and also under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge against the accused is that he being a public servant as lineman at Anna Road, RSU Telephone Exchange, Madras Talephone, directly demanded and accepted from the complainant viz. Shri J. Gnanasekaran on 28. 06. 1996 at about 1. 40 pm Consti Constitution of India at Madras a sum of Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for repairing the faults in his telephone bearing indicator No. 8547095 and hence committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and on the same day at the same time and in the same transaction by corrupt or illegal means otherwise abusing your official position as such public servant obtained for yourself pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 300/- from Shri. J. Gnanasekaran for repairing his fault telephone bearing No. 8547095 and thereby committed an offence under Section 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE case was taken on file as C. C. No. 206/1997 by the 11th Additional Special Judge for CBI cases, Madras. On appearance of the accused on summons, the learned trial judge has furnished copies under Section 207 of Cr. P. C. On the side of the Prosecution P. W. 1 to P. W. 8 were examined and Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 18 were exhibited and M. O. 1 to M. O. 17 were marked.

(3.) P. W. 1 is the Sub-Divisional Engineer, Madras Telephones, Chenai. During 1996 he was working as Sub-Divisional Engineer, Chennai Telephones. The accused Sanjeevi was working as lineman in the same department as Class IV employee. According to P. W. 1, he is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the accused. P and T Manual Volume III, Part VII empowering the Sub-Divisional Engineer who is Group B Officer to appoint, to take disciplinary action and to remove from service Class IV employees (Group D ). The copy of the abovesaid notification is Ex. P. 1. Ex. P. 2 is the sanction order for prosecution of the accused passed by P. W. 1. P. W. 1 would depose that before issuing sanction order he had perused the complaint and report and FIR and other documents pertaining to the statements of the witnesses etc. after applying his mind on perusing the said documents and relevant records and after getting himself satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused, he (P. W. 1) had accorded sanction under Ex. P. 2.