D SATHIYAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge Pondicherry in Crl.M.P.No. 737 of 1994 in Special C.C.No. 2 of 1986, dated 20-8-1996.

(2.) The said petition was filed by the State under Section 311, Cr.P.C. to summon one Nageswara Rao, former Junior Engineer, Electricity Board, Yanam, as an additional witness.

(3.) The charge against the accused petitioner is that he and one Nageswara Rao being public servants, employed as Assistant Engineer, Karaikal and Junior Engineer at Yanam respectively, during the period 1982-83 conspired, demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration form persons having dealings with the Electricity Department as consumers at Yanam and as a motive or award for showing favour to them in the exercise of their official functions. It is alleged that the petitioner herein received illegal gratification of Rs. 4,500/- from two customers and that Nageswara Rao received a sum of Rs. 3,368/- from another consumer and also a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from one more consumer in favour of the petitioner herein. The further allegation in pursuance of the said criminal conspiracy during the period 1982-83 is that the petitioner and Nageswara Rao demanded and accepted illegal gratification and thereby committed offences under Sections 120-B, IPC, 5(1) (a) and 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. It is further stated that at the time of framing of charges, the petitioner denied the offences while Nageswara Rao admitted the charges framed against him and as a result he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court for all the said charges and imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- each under the provisions mentioned above, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The case against the petitioner/accused was ordered to be split up and tried separately. In pursuance of the above judgment, the accused/petitioner is facing trial in C.C.No. 2 of 1986. In the petition under Section 311, Cr.P.C. .the State has pleaded that the said Nageswara Rao was a material witness for the prosecution to speak about the demand and acceptance of the amounts from the consumers.