AROKIARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.5.2008 made in Special CC. No. 6/2003 by the learned Special Judge Cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Chengalput, thereby (a) convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and (b) convicting and sentencing each of the Appellants/A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and (c) ordering the sentences to run concurrently. The case of the Prosecution is as follows:

(2.) The case was taken on file in Special CC. No. 6/2003 by the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalput and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges Levelled against the accused, the Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.14) and also relied on Exs.P1 to P10 and five Material objects (Mos. 1 to 5). On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the appellants guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

(3.) Mr. V. Padmanabhan, the learned senior counsel for the Appellants contended that the Conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is not based on any legal evidence. The learned counsel has submitted that the evidence of P.W.2, the complainant indicated that nothing was demanded directly from P.W.2 by the 1st Appellant and there is evidence on record to establish that in pursuance of demand of the 1st Appellant/A1, the 2nd Appellant/A2 obtained illegal gratification. The learned counsel also pointed out to the evidence of P.W.2 that he was treated as hostile by the Prosecution as he had gone back on his complaint and the statement made to the Police. The learned senior counsel submitted that the evidence of P.W.3 (trap witness) cannot be relied upon and pointed out that he has gone to the extern of a false witness.