ABDUL RAGUMAN Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition to quash the charge memo dated 27.05.2009 issued by the first respondent, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

(2.) The appellant/writ petitioner was prosecuted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The above case, after a full-fledged trial, was ended in acquittal on 31.12008 in S.C.No.10 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. Thereafter, the first respondent issued a charge memo dated 27.05.2009 on the basis of the allegation, which was the subject matter of the criminal trial. Challenging the above said charge memo, the Writ Petition came to be filed. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition, by order dated 23.01.2018. Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the Criminal Court, after analysing the entire evidence, has acquitted the appellant, by judgment dated 31.12.2008. The entire allegation levelled against the appellant relates to the year 2000 that he, being a public servant, demanded bribe amount from the defacto complainant. In the process of the amount being handed over to one of the Assistants of the appellant, the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption seized the amount. Thereafter, the appellant proceeded under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The same set of witnesses were examined before the Criminal Court and the Criminal Court has rightly acquitted the accused. Based on the similar allegation, the present charge memo dated 27.05.2009 was issued with such a huge delay.