BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 28.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN C.A.No.130 of 2002 State : Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Dept, Chennai. .. Appellant / petitioner Vs. K.Kantha .. Respondent / accused Prayer :- This appeal has been preferred under 378 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 28.06.2001 in C.C.No.36 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions – cum – Special Judge, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.J.C.Durai Raj, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Respondent : Mr.K.Chairman Selvaraj, Advocate JUDGMENT The Government is the appellant herein. The appeal has been directed against the judgment in C.C.No.36 of 1996 on the file of the Court of IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The accused was charged under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2.The short facts of the prosecution case is that the accused was working as an Assessor in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board during the relevant point of time and that for making a wrong entry in the white card, electricity consumption card, on 9.3.1995 the accused had demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs.500/- and settled for Rs.300/- as an illegal gratification and received the same on 9.3.195 between 1.25 pm and 1.35 pm. Thus committed an offence under Section 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevent of Corruption Act, 1966. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned trial Judge, after taking the case on file and furnishing the copies of the documents to the accused, framed the charges and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 were marked. A colleague of the accused working in the Electricity Board was examined as D.W.1 on the side of the accused and no exhibit was marked on the side of the accused. M.O.1 to M.O.3 were marked. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary the learned trial Judge, after coming to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the accused has not been proved, has acquitted the accused from all the charges under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. 4.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant/Government. 5.P.W.8-Investigating Officer, in his evidence would admit that the recovered amount of Rs.300/- being the alleged illegal gratification amount received by the accused from P.W.2 was not recovered from the person of the accused, but from the Obstruct Book and Chitta Book, Ex.P.5 & Ex.P.6 respectively. The case of the prosecution is that since in the Electricity Metre installed in P.W.5's hospital the metre reading recorded in the said metre was defective, the accused had demanded Rs.500/- for entering a lesser reading in the white card (electricity consumption card) in the accounts of the owner of the metre and the she had received Rs.300/- from P.W.2 on 9.3.1995 between 1.15 pm and 1.30 pm. But absolutely there is no material placed before the trial Trial Court to show that the metre that was installed in P.W.5's hospital was showing defective reading. Another material contradictory pointed out on the side of the accused is that P.W.2, who is the complainant, in his evidence would depose that the Office of the accused is situated at second floor of Electricity Board Office, Thambuchetti Street, whereas the decoy witness P.W.3 in his evidence has deposed that the Office of the accused is at first floor in the Electricity Board Building at Thambuchetti Street and that only at the first floor the accused had received the illegal gratification amount of Rs.300/- from P.W.2. P.W.8-Investigating Officer would also depose that the occurrence had taken place at the first floor in the Office of the accused Office in Electricity Board Office at Thambuchetti Street. So, there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2 on the one hand and P.W.3 & P.W.8 on the other hand regarding the place of occurrence i.e., the place where the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.300/-. Only on such material irregularities in the case of the prosecution, the learned trial Judge after giving the benefit of doubt to the accused had acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against her. I do not fine any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned trial Judge https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in C.C.No.36 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge – cum – Special Judge, Chennai, which is neither illegal nor infirm to warrant any interference from this Court. 6.In fine, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment in C.C.No.36 of 1996 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge – cum – Special Judge, Chennai, is hereby confirmed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar. ssv To 1. The IV Additional Sessions Judge – cum – Special Judge, Chennai, 2. The Registrar, City Civil Court, Chennai. 3. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Dept, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. Copy to: The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. C.A.No.107 of 2002 VM [CO] RB 5/11/2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/