STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Vs. K KANTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government is the appellant herein. THE appeal has been directed against the judgment in C.C.No.36 of 1996 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. THE accused was charged under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE short facts of the prosecution case is that the accused was working as an Assessor in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board during the relevant point of time and that for making a wrong entry in the white card, electricity consumption card, on 9.3.1995 the accused had demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs.500.00 and settled for Rs.300.00 as an illegal gratification and received the same on 9.3.195 between 1.25 pm and 1.35 pm. Thus committed an offence under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevent of Corruption Act, 1966.

(3.) P.W.8-Investigating Officer, in his evidence would admit that the recovered amount of Rs.300.00 being the alleged illegal gratification amount received by the accused from P.W.2 was not recovered from the person of the accused, but from the Obstruct Book and Chitta Book, Ex.P.5 & Ex.P.6 respectively. The case of the prosecution is that since in the Electricity Metre installed in P.W.5's hospital the metre reading recorded in the said metre was defective, the accused had demanded Rs.500.00 for entering a lesser reading in the white card (electricity consumption card) in the accounts of the owner of the metre and the she had received Rs.300.00 from P.W.2 on 9.3.1995 between 1.15 pm and 1.30 pm. But absolutely there is no material placed before the trial Trial Court to show that the metre that was installed in P.W.5's hospital was showing defective reading. Another material contradictory pointed out on the side of the accused is that P.W.2, who is the complainant, in his evidence would depose that the Office of the accused is situated at second floor of Electricity Board Office, Thambuchetti Street, whereas the decoy witness P.W.3 in his evidence has deposed that the Office of the accused is at first floor in the Electricity Board Building at Thambuchetti Street and that only at the first floor the accused had received the illegal gratification amount of Rs.300.00 from P.W.2. P.W.8-Investigating Officer would also depose that the occurrence had taken place at the first floor in the Office of the accused Office in Electricity Board Office at Thambuchetti Street. So, there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2 on the one hand and P.W.3 & P.W.8 on the other hand regarding the place of occurrence i.e., the place where the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.300.00. Only on such material irregularities in the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge after giving the benefit of doubt to the accused had acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against her. I do not fine any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge in C.C.No.36 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge - cum - Special Judge, Chennai, which is neither illegal nor infirm to warrant any interference from this Court.