V NATARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 and A-2 are the appellants in Crl. A. Nos.957 and 958 of 2004 respectively and they are challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.C. No.16 of 2002 by the judgment dated 30.06.2004 convicting both the accused for the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of corruption Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting them under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act and sentencing them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently in these appeals.

(2.) 1. The first charge against the accused is that A-1 and A-2 were working as Inspector and Constable at Triplicane Prohibition Wing and the first accused demanded Rs.4,500/- as mamool every month from P.W.2 who was managing the wine shop of P.W.4 under the name and style as senthil Wine Shop, on 02.12.2001 and even earlier and threatened, further, the first accused instructed p.w.2 to give monthly mamool amount before the evening of 03.12.2001 otherwise he would be implicated in a prohibition case and the wine shop would be sealed. In pursuance of the said demand on 03.12.2001 at 6.00 p.m. A-1 said to have received a sum of Rs.4,500/- as illegal gratification from P.W.2 and A-2 in spite of knowing that the said amount is a bribe amount received the same and put it in a cover and kept the same in his room and as such both of them were liable to be punished for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. 2.2. The second charge is that both A-1 and A-2 misused their official position for the purpose of getting pecuniary advantage of Rs.4,500/- as illegal gratification from P.W.2 and as such they are liable to punished for the offence under Section 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

(3.) WHEN the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against them, both A-1 and A-2 have denied each and every circumstances put to them as false and contrary to the facts and both A-1 and A-2 also filed a written statement under Sections 313 read with 243 (1) of Cr.P.C. it is stated by A-1 in that statement that on 03.12.2001 at 6.30 p.m. while he was in his office room P.W.2 came there and told him that he has to remit the amount and A-1 questioned him whether he has any fine amount, but P.W.2 has not given any proper reply, it was only stated by P.W.2 has not given any proper reply. it was only stated by P.W.2 that his owner instructed him to give that amount. A-1 pushed the hands of P.W.2 and thereafter P.W.2 left his room. A-2, on the other hand, stated that on 03.12.2001 at 6.00 p.m., he was present in the office. P.Ws.5, 7 and 7 were also present. At that time A-1 was sitting in his cabin and the same was separated by a partition. A-1 has not called him inside his cabin and he has never handed over any amount to him.