K.V. VELU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused against the dismissal of discharge filed under section 239 of Cr.P.C., 1973 The petitioner who is arrayed as the sole accused has been charge sheeted for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief as per the charge sheet is that the petitioner/accused was working as A4 Assistant at Gingee Taluk Office, Viluppuram District from 08.07.2013 to 17.06.2015 and that on 18.03.2015, the de-facto complainant, who owns a pawn brokers shop at Gingee Town in the name of "R.R.Pawn Brokers", applied for renewal of the license for his shop for the years 2015-2018 at 10.30 hrs before the accused. At that time, the accused demanded Rs. 4,500/- as illegal gratification for processing and arranging to renew the pawn brokers licence for the years 2015-2018. Twenty days prior to 15.06.2015 on Sunday at about 11.30 hrs, when the de-facto complainant met the petitioner/accused at his office the petitioner/accused had reduced his demand to Rs. 4,000/- on the request made by the de-facto complainant. On the same day at about 12.00 hrs, the petitioner/accused had contacted the de-facto complainant over mobile phone and had informed him that his license was ready and asked him to bring the demanded amount of Rs. 4,000/-. On 16.06.2015 at about 11.30 hrs, when the de-facto complainant met the petitioner/accused at his office, the petitioner/accused had further reduced his demand to Rs. 3,500/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for delivering the processed license renewal order of the complainant's pawn brokers shop license for the years 2015-2018. Further, in pursuance of the above said demands, the petitioner/accused had on 17.06.2015 between 12.30 hrs and 12.40 hrs, at Gingee Taluk Office demanded and obtained Rs. 3,500/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for himself as motive or reward for processing and arranging the pawn brokers shop renewal for the years 2015-2018 and thereby, the petitioner/accused had committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, during the course of same transactions at the same place and same time, the petitioner/accused being a public servant by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his position as public servant obtained the above said pecuniary advantage of Rs. 3,500/- for himself in the circumstances stated above and had committed an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution has cited 18 witnesses and had listed 28 documents and 6 material objects along with the charge sheet. The petitioner/accused had filed a petition for discharge under section 239 of Cr.P.C , 1973contending that the charge sheet does not prima facie show or disclose the commission of any of the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused and that the charge sheet does not make out a case against the petitioner/accused and that even if the entire complaint goes unrebutted will not warrant the conviction of the petitioner/accused and thereby, he is entitled to discharge. Further, the petitioner/accused had stated that he was relived on 18.03.2015 at the close of the office hours, for the purpose of attending a training conducted by the State Government from 20.03.2015 to 07.05.2015 and a specific date 19.03.2015 was treated as a travelling time to reach the training place at Vellore. Further, the petitioner/accused has stated since he had gone on training he had handed over the application of the de-facto complainant vide DR. No. 9487 to one Mr. Duraiselvan who was A1 section clerk and that the petitioner/accused joined duty after completion of his training at Vellore on 08.05.2015 and that the application was returned by A1 section clerk to the petitioner/accused on 13.05.2015. The petitioner/accused had submitted that the application of the de-facto complainant was processed by the Tahsildhar, Gingee on 18.03.2015 itself and was renewed on the same day as the previous license expires on 31.03.2015. The further submissions made by the petitioner/accused was that the de-facto complainant contacted the petitioner/accused when he was in the training period and the petitioner/accused briefed him that the renewed license is with A1 section clerk and had directed the de-facto complainant to contact A1 section clerk. The petitioner/accused would further submit that on 08.05.2015, he had called the de-facto complainant over phone several times to come and collect the renewed license and that the calls were made from his office landline phone number and his mobile number, whereas, the de-facto complainant had not turned up for the reasons best known to him and further, the de-facto complainant met the petitioner/accused on 16.06.2015 by 11.30 a.m., and that even on that day the de-facto complainant had refused to receive the license saying that he is going to Chennai and that he may miss the original license in transit and had told the petitioner/accused that he will collect the renewed license once he returns from Chennai. The petitioner/accused had further contended that the allegations are baseless and that the pawn broking license was already renewed on 18.03.2015 and that the charges are baseless.

(3.) The respondent had filed a counter stating that the application for renewal of pawn broker license of the de-facto complainant was picked up by the petitioner/accused on 18.03.2015, through the Distribution Register, vide No. 4015 and thereafter, it was processed and the file regarding the renewal licence had been closed in the Distribution Register, vide No. 9487 on 13.05.2015. While so, the petitioner/accused had managed to obtain the order of renewal from his higher-up with ante-date i.e., on 18.03.2015 and that the said facts can be proved only in a full fledged trial, by relying on the entries made in the Distribution Register. Further, statements have been recorded from witnesses through Tr.Seenuvasan and Tmt.Vasuki with regard to the procedure adopted and regarding the process of application of the de-facto complainant starting with serial No. 3198 and closing with the serial No. 4017 on 13.05.2015, thus, proving to show that the petitioner/accused had acted with a motive to extract bribe from the de-facto complainant and thereby, there was prima facie material against the petitioner/accused for having committed the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and that it is not a case for discharge. Further, there was ample material to show that there was demand and acceptance and that the phenolphthalein test conducted on both hands of the petitioner/accused and his cloths had also proved positive and the tainted money is also recovered from the petitioner/accused.