K. PUGAZHENDHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Ariyalur, in Special Case No. 10 of 2012, convicting the appellant/accused to undergo sentence of 5 years Simple Imprisonment for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and 7 years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as found proved by the trial Court, is that the appellant while functioning as Firka Surveyor at Ariyalur Taluk Office, had demanded Rs. 2000/- on 04.10.2007 from one Kannadasan, the defacto complainant [PW2] to measure his property, sub-divide it and to give separate patta in the name of his parents. On a complaint by PW-2, PW-11 has registered the First Information Report [Ex.P-19] on 08.10.2007 at 09.00 hours, prepared pre-trap arrangement and recorded it by way of mahazar and then proceeded to Taluk Office with PW2[Kannadasan]., PW-3 [Radhakrishnan] along with his trap team. At about 16.30 hours, PW-2 [Kannadasamn] and PW-2 [Radhakrishnan] went to the accused, who was chatting with two persons near a TVS-50 two wheeler parked at staircase to the new building of Taluk Office. The accused demanded money and received the same from PW-2 [Kannadasamn]. On receipt of pre-arranged signal, the trap laying officer PW-11 and his team went to the accused and enquired him and asked to dip his hand fingers to the sodium carbonate solution. On seeing the changed colour of the solution, the police team enquired the accused about the receipt of bribe money. The accused took out Rs. 2000/- (M.O.1 series) from the shirt pocket and handed over to the Investigating Officer. After preparation of seizure mahazar (Ex.P8), the accused was arrested. The chemical analysis report opined the present of phenolphthalein in the sample solution collected from each of the hands wash and shirt pocket. Based on the evidence let in by the prosecution, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced as stated above.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the accused has questioned the reasoning and legality of the judgment on the ground that the sanction to prosecute was accorded without perusing the entire file regarding investigation, which is contra to the dicta laid in CBI v. Asokh Kumar Agarwal case and the guideline of the CBI manual, which says that the CBI should forward all material records to the sanctioning authority.