STATE Vs. M ASAITHAMBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code as against the order of acquittal made in C.C.No.3/2002 dated 26.03.2004 by the learned District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate & Special Judge, Udhagamandalam.) THIS appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Police Station, Udhagamandalam against the judgment of the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate), Udhagamandalam in Special C.C.No.3/2002 dated 26.03.2004.

(2.) THE sole accused in the above said case was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial judge,by his judgment dated 26.03.2004, acquitted the respondent herein/accused holding that the charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the respondent/accused was not guilty of any of the offences for which he was prosecuted and acquitted him of all the offences with which he stood charged. Challenging the correctness and legality of the said judgment of acquittal, the State has come forwards with the present appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C.

(3.) NINE witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 9 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P18 and also 7 material objects were produced as M.Os.1 to 7 on the side of the prosecution to substantiate the charges framed against the respondent herein/accused. After recording of evidence on the side of the prosecution was over, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. He denied them as false and once again reiterated his stand that he was innocent and that the case was foisted by P.W.1, who was the husband of an elected councillor of Coonoor Municipality with the help of his friends in the Anti-corruption Wing of the police department. No witness was examined on the side of the respondent herein/accused. However, eight documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D8 on his side.