STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE THOOTHUKUDI Vs. BAGAVATHY DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption, Thoothukudi against the judgment of the learned Special Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoothukudi, dated 21.04.2009 pronounced in Special Case No.1 of 2005, acquitting the respondents 1 and 2 herein of the offences for which they were tried before the said court.

(2.) THE respondent No.1 figured as the first accused and respondent No.2 figured as the second accused in the Special Case before the Trial Court. The first respondent/A1 was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The second respondent/A2 was prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 12 r/w Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 13(2) r/w 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w Section 34 IPC. After trial, the learned Special Judge found them not guilty of any one of the offences with which they stood charged and accordingly, pronounced a judgment of acquittal, acquitting the respondents No.1 and 2 of the respective charges, for which they were tried.

(3.) ON appearance of the respondents/accused, charges were framed against them and the respondents/accused denied the charges, pursuant to which a trial was conducted. In the trial, 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 23 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P23 and Material Objects M.Os 1 to 19 were produced on the side of the prosecution. After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the respondents herein/accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution and generally on the case. The respondents/accused denied such evidence containing incriminating materials to be false and contended that they had committed no offence. Two witnesses were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and nine documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D9 on the side of the accused.