C. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. THANGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused- 1 and 2 in Special Case No.4 of 2011 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act , Tiruchirapalli, are the appellants herein. The first appellant herein/1st accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the second appellant herein/2nd accused stood charged for the offence under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. When the appellants were questioned as to the charges, they pleaded not guilty and therefore, they were put on trial. The learned Special Judge, after full-fledged trial, found the first appellant herein/1st accused guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of The Prevention of Corruption, 1988 and the second appellant herein/2nd accused guilty for the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the appellants were accordingly convicted and sentenced as follows:

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows : The appellant in CRL.A. No.88 of 2012/ 1st accused/Balakrishnan was working as Revenue Assistant at Co- Abishekapuram Zonal Office, Puthur, Tiruchirapalli Corporation, Tiruhirapalli from 09.02.1999 to 01.09.2006 and hence he is a public servant and the appellant in CRL.A. No.89 of 2012/2nd accused/Thangaraj was a private individual was working unofficially under the appellant in CRL.A. No.88 of 2012/1 st accused.

(3.) The appellant in CRL.A. No.88 of 2012/1st accused/Balakrishnan, misused his official capacity, demanded a sum of Rs.5,500/-as illegal gratification from the defacto complainant/P.W.2/Thangaponnu on 31.08.2006 at 05.30 p.m., to process her application for half-yearly house tax for the newly constructed house of the defacto complainant at Plot No.13 at Arasu Colony, Edamalaipatty Pudhur, Tiruchirapalli leniently. In pursuant of the said demand, the appellant in CRL.A. No.88 of 2012/1st accused/Balakrishnan, demanded and accepted Rs.5,500/- as bribe from the defacto complainant/P.W.2/Thangaponnu through the appellant in CRL.A. No.89 of 2012/2nd accused/Thangaraj, at his office on 01.09.2006 at 05.15 p.m, for the said purpose. Therefore, the appellant/1st accused in CRL.A.Nos.88 of 2012 had committed an offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellant/2nd accused in CRL.A.(MD) No.89 of 2012 had committed an offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.