K.JANAKARAN Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner, who is an accused in Special C.C.No.3 of 2015 filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C., in Crl.M.P.No.6654 of 2019,
seeking to recall PW4, PW12 and PW13 for cross examination and
further cross examination. The trial Court by order dated 27.11.2019 in
Crl.M.P.No.6654 of 2019 in Special C.C.No.3 of 2015 dismissed the
petition, against which the present petition.
(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Village Administrative Officer of Suriyanapalli
Village. The decoy/PW2 purchased a land in the said village and for the
purpose of getting electricity connection, he needed a certificate from
VAO. It is alleged that the petitioner for issuance of the certificate,
demanded bribe amount on 14.12.2013. Not willing to pay the same, the
decoy/PW2 lodged a complaint to PW12. Following the procedures,
PW12 with PW3, the accompanying witness and PW4, the other official
witness laid a trap. On 14.12.2013 at about 12.00 noon, the decoy/PW12
and the accompanying witness/PW3 met the petitioner in his office,
received the certificate and kept the tainted money on the table and
thereafter, PW12 along with his trap team entered into the office and trap
proceedings were recorded as though the petitioner had demanded and
received the bribe money.
(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, PW2 gave a false complaint against the petitioner. PW12 without conducting proper
investigation to somehow make the trap success had implicated the
petitioner. Further on the day of the trap, DW2/Shanmugham and
DW3/Jayanthkumar were present in the office which is admitted by PW2
and PW3. This fact has to be confirmed with PW4, the other trap witness
and to expose the falsity of PW12, TLO who denies the same.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.