S. MARIMUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment passed in Spl. Case. No. 3 of 2006, on the file of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, dtd. 3/9/2010.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 12/2/2005, at about 05.20 hours, the de facto complainant namely PW.2 appeared before the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thoothukudi and preferred a written complaint against the appellant viz., S.Marimuthu, who was working as a Village Administrative Officer, Kadambur, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District, alleging that the appellant had demanded Rs.2,000.00 as bribe from him for recommending and arranging to get legal heir certificate for the wife of the de facto complainant Tmt.Pitchaimani. The de facto complainant had approached the appellant on 11/2/2005 at about 18.50 hrs., in Door No. 22A, 6th Street, Pudugramam, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District, to get legal heir certificate for his wife. When the de facto complainant met the appellant on 11/2/2005, the appellant demanded Rs.2,000.00 from him. Since the de facto complainant was not willing to pay any bribe to the appellant for getting legal heir certificate to his wife, he went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Thoothukudi, on 12/2/2005 and gave a written complaint against the appellant seeking action against him.

(3.) Based on the complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 2005 under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After registration of the First Information Report, P.W.10 viz., Rajkumar, arranged a trap and after completing all the formalities, the Investigating Officer viz., Perumal Samy, laid charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Thoothukudi, for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the same has been taken on file in Special Case No. 3 of 2006 and after completing all the legal formalities, charges were framed as against the appellant.