Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10.P.W.7 Investigating Officer examined witnesses, obtained sanction for prosecution from P.W.1 and filed final report.

11.On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Section 120-B r/w. 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and under Section 9 and Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, convicted A-1 under Section 420 I.P.C. (5 counts), A-3 under Section 468 I.P.C, A-1 and A-3 under Section 468 r/w 471 I.P.C. A-1 and A-3 under Section 9 of PC Act 1988 and A-1 under Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.Nos.831 & 832 of 2012

12.A-1 to A-3 were sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Sections 120-B r/w. 420, 468, 471 I.P.C. and under Section 9 and Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; A-1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. (5 counts), in default to undergo SI for one month; A-3 was sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 468 I.P.C., in default to undergo SI for one month; A-1 and A-3 were each sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section 468 r/w.471 I.P.C, in default to undergo SI for one month; A-1 and A-3 were each sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offence under Section 9 of PC Act, 1988, in default to undergo SI for one month; A1 was sentenced to undergo two years of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 13 (2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in default to undergo SI for one month. The substantive https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.Nos.831 & 832 of 2012 sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the conviction of sentence as aforesaid, the appellants have filed these appeals.

32.The evidence of PW6 handwriting expert and Ex.P13 report clearly prove that the questioned signatures Q1and Q2 in Ex.P18 when compared with the admitted signature of accused G.Kumar S1 to S10 tallied and it was found that the accused G.Kumar was the person responsible for writing the questioned signatures Q1 and Q2 in Ex.P18. This unimpeachable evidence clearly proves that the accused G.Kumar in conspiracy with the accused M.G.Elumalai created forged appointment order for using it as genuine document for the purpose of cheating PW2. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the charges against the accused M.G.Elumalai for offences under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 9 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.Nos.831 & 832 of 2012 1988; 468 r/w 471 IPC and under Section 9, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stand proved. The trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused M.G.Elumalai for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 9 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 468 r/w 471 IPC and under section 9, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since accused M.G.Elumalai is convicted under Sections 9 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is not necessary to convict him under Section 420 (5 counts) IPC and sentence him. Therefore, conviction recorded against him under Section 420 (5 counts) IPC and sentence imposed are set aside. This Court also finds that charges against the accused G.Kumar for the offences under Section 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 9 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 468 r/w 471 IPC and under section 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were clearly proved and he was rightly convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment passed against the accused M.G.Elumalai and G.Kumar.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.Nos.831 & 832 of 2012

33.So far as the second accused is concerned, evidence shows that he received a sum of Rs.2,000/- from PW2 at the instance of the first accused M.G.Elumalai. There is no evidence produced to show that he had any previous knowledge that the first accused M.G.Elumalai demanded illegal gratification from PW2 and PW2 paid Rs.2,000/- towards illegal gratification demanded by the first accused M.G.Elumalai. There is also no evidence to show the conspiracy with other accused. In the absence of any knowledge that he received the bribe amount, on the instructions of M.G.Elumalai, in the considered view of the Court, the second accused R.Dhani cannot be convicted for the offences under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 9 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Therefore, the conviction recorded against the second accused R.Dhani under Sections 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and Section 9 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and imposing of sentence thereon are not correct and in accordance with law and liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. He is acquitted of the charges against him. The fine amount, if any paid by him, is ordered to be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.Nos.831 & 832 of 2012 refunded to him.