G MANICKAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. No. 16 of 1990 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, is the appellant.

(2.) THE accused/appellant was employed as Junior Assistant (B-3 Section), Taluk Office, Harur. In the said office, he was handling B-3 Section, which deals with the issuance of Community Certificate. The defacto complainant-Velliangiri having filed an application for obtaining Community Certificate approached the accused/appellant and it seems for processing the file and for issuing certificate, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 400/- originally, then reduced the same to Rs. 300/- on 23. 3. 1989 which was agreed to by the defacto complainant to be given on the next day. However, the defacto complainant reported the matter to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, who have arranged a trap proceedings. In the trap proceedings, the amount demanded by the accused, accepted by him were established, leading to investigation of the case, preceded by registration of the crime. Thus accusing, the respondent has filed a case before the court concerned seeking appropriate punishment since the accused/appellant being a public servant, committed the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 of I. P. C. , after obtaining necessary permission from the authorities concerned.

(3.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Additional District Judge by going through the final report as well as the connected materials, felt the necessity to frame charges against the accused, since the materials were so sufficient and thus framing, when questioned the accused, disputed the case, pleading not guilty.