THYAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed praying to quash the CC.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Chennai filed under Sec. 7, 13(2) R/w.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is as follows :-

(3.) The main grounds raised by the petitioner is that the respondent police without any evidence implicated the petitioner/A1. The sanctioning authority who accorded sanction against the petitioner has not verified the basic aspects and fundamental principals, mechanically granted sanction against the petitioner. The petitioner has become scapegoat and victim to the circumstances and therefore, the trial against this petitioner is unwarranted in the absence of demand, acceptance and recovery from the petitioner. The trial Court ought not to have framed charge against A1 and further the cognizance taken by the trial Court against A1 is bad in law. While attending the complainant grievance of issuing assessment order, in any manner the petitioner has no role to play either directly or indirectly, even in the preparation of assessment order, A2 is having separate clerk to carryout his work. In the final report filed by the respondent police does not disclose foundational aspects of demand, acceptance and recovery and the materials collected by the respondent police are not sterling quality and the charge against the petitioner is not maintainable. The trap laying officer having inimical term with the petitioner, at that time, the complainant has given prevaricating statement regarding demand and acceptance. After coming out on bail, the petitioner made representation infusing serious and scathing allegation against the trap laying officer, during the course of trapping the petitioner was compelled to handle the money before conducting the phenolphthalein test. From the 161 statement of complainant and officials witness it can be inferred that the petitioner in a divorced circumstances and as per the instructions of A2 being the superior officer, the petitioner received money and entrusted the money and documents to A2, therefore fastening criminal liability against the petitioner is per se illegal. The final report and the documents collected by the respondent/police are crystal clear that the demand of money was made by A2 for issuing assessment order and A2 authorised to issue the same as per law and the same was borne by records, however the trap laying officer not figured A2 in the FIR and the DSP laid the final report without assigning proper rank in the charge-sheet, the above factum strengthen the allegation of the petitioner against the respondent/police that right from the geneses of the FIR and culminating into final report the respondent/police acted with malafide intention to implicate the petitioner in the trapping.