S.PARTHIBAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner/A-2 against order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur in CMP No.2157/2015 in special Case No.5/2014 dated 18.07.2018, dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner/A-2.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-2 would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A2 in this case. She would further submit that there is no averments in the charge sheet that this petitioner abetted A-1 to commit the offence and would submit that in the absence of the averments, filing of the charge sheet for the offence under section 10 of Prevention of Corruption Act against petitioner/A-2 is not legally sustainable. She would also submit that there is no substance to frame the charge as against the petitioner/A-2. She would further submit that even as per the final report the allegation against the petitioner/A-2 is that he only allowed A1, a private individual to collect bribe and it is also not the case of the prosecution that the bribe amount was collected by A1 on behalf of petitioner/A2 on the inducement of A2 and she would submit that therefore, the charge sheet filed as against the petitioner/A-2 is not sustainable. The learned counsel would also submit that there is absolutely no evidence to show the association between A1 and A2 with regard to the illegal demand. She would further submit that no material is there on record to connect A1 and A2 and thereby, the trial court cannot frame charges against the petitioner/accused. She would also submit that the petitioner/accused is a permanent resident of Kalinjur, Vellore and that on 18.03.1983 he was appointed as a surveyor cum Draughtsman on consolidated basis and posted at Cheyyar and that during the year 1989 his service was regularised and posted at Kanchipuram District and thereafter, he had been periodically promoted. She would also submit that the petitioner/A-2 had been working in the Revenue Department for the past 31 years without any adverse remarks. While so, the de-facto complainant had given an application for transfer of Patta before the Tahsildar, Madavaram and the said application was forwarded to the petitioner/A-2 for area inspection. She would submit that the petitioner/A-2 inspected the place and filed a report before the Deputy Tashildar and on the basis of the report given by the petitioner/A-2, the Deputy Tashildar passed a sanction order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/A-2 would further submit that while facts being so, Durai approached the petitioner/A-2 and demanded the Patta for which, the petitioner/A-2 had informed the said Durai that his job was over and it is the duty of the Tahsildar to issue the Patta. Being not satisfied with the reply given by the petitioner/A-2 the said Durai had lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department on 03.01.2013, making the allegation against the petitioner/A-2 and one Ravikumar stating that the said Ravikumar demanded a bribe of Rs. 3,000/- to process and issue of individual Patta and that based on the complaint given by the said Durai the respondent registered a case as against the said Ravikumar for the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act alleging that the said Ravikumar claiming to be the Assistant of the petitioner/A-2 herein demanded the bribe for issuance of individual Patta. Subsequently, the respondent organized a trap and registered a case as against the said Ravikumar. After investigation the respondent herein filed the final report as against the said Ravikumar and the petitioner/A-2 for offences under sections 8 and 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned counsel would further submit that contents of the charge sheet against the petitioner/A-2 is that the petitioner/A-2 knowing fully well that A1/Ravikumar private individual is abusing his official position paved the way obtain gratification by corrupt or illegal means and continuously allowed A1/Ravikumar the private individual and being a public servant by abusing his official position abetted A1/Ravikumar to receive the bribe amount to do an official Act which is supposed to be done by petitioner/A2 and thereby, the allegation against the petitioner/A2 for having committed an offence under section 10 of the Provision Corruption Act. The learned counsel would further submit that the learned trial judge in the absence of legal material against the petitioner/A-2 ought to have discharged the petitioner/A-2.