BAVANANDAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2002, on the file of the learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By judgment dated 13.06.2007, the trial Court found him guilty under both charges and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused and the accused denied the charges. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were exhibited and seven material objects were also marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 was the then Revenue Divisional Officer of Pudukkottai and he has spoken about the sanction given by him, for launching prosecution as against the accused, as required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. P.W.2 had vividly spoken about the occurrence. But during cross-examination, he had shown hostility towards the prosecution and therefore, he was treated as hostile and he was cross- examined. P.W.3 is the official witness, who has accompanied P.W.2 during the trap and he has spoken about the same. P.W.4 is the village man, who has spoken about the happenings at the time of trap and the fact that the tainted money was given to him by the accused. P.W.5 is the surveyor, who has spoken about the procedure for transfer of patta and other details. So also the evidences of P.W.6 and P.W.7. P.W.9 is yet another Village Administrative Officer, who took charge of the office, after the arrest of the accused. P.W.10 is the Tahsildar concerned, who has stated that the power to pass order of transfer relating to patta lies with the Scheme Officer He has further stated that any request for transfer of patta given to the scheme officer will be forwarded to the Revenue Inspector and then to the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.11 is the scientific assistant. P.W.12 has spoken about the registration of case and the trap and P.W.13 is the Investigating Officer.