G KOTHANDAN Vs. STATE, REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CHENNAI CITY CIRCLE-II

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused against the judgement passed by the trial Court convicting him under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and also convicting him under Section 13 (2) and 13(1) (d) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs. 2,500/- in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. The trial Court ordered the entire sentence to run concurrently and the period already undergone by the accused was directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The de-facto complainant is a Conservation worker of Chennai Corporation. The appellant/accused is the Conservation Inspector of Chennai Corporation. 41 scavengers are under the control of the appellant/accused and his duty is to allot work to each scavengers to clean a particular street under his control.

(3.) The de-facto complainant Anthonyammal, working as a Scavenger was allotted to clean a street namely, Thirupalli Street. Whileso, during November 2003, the appellant/accused had allotted the de-facto complainant to do work at Wall tax Road, instead of Thirupalli Street. Since, the de-facto complainant felt that the Wall Tax Road was having more debris and more work, she wanted to do work at Thirupalli Street itself. So, the de-facto complainant had approached the accused, who is empowered to re-allot the work, with the request to re-allot her the said Thirupalli Street. On 30.01.2003, the appellant/accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as bribe to re-allot her work from Wall Tax Road to Thirupalli Street. So, the de-facto complainant had informed the fact to her husband and after consultation, they had decided to give a complaint to Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department and the de-facto complainant along with her husband and another known person went to the Vigilance office at Adyar and gave a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department. The D.S.P, Vigilance had directed the Inspector of Vigilance Department to register and investigate the case.