Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: procured document in K.Mohanraj vs J.Jayapaul Mohan .. 1St on 18 December, 2015Matching Fragments
18. In fact, it is the specific case of the first respondent K.Mohanraj that one Rajagopal, Assistant Engineer was placed under suspension on the allegation that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,41,800/- collected towards cycle stand at Royapettah Hospital and failed to remit the same. A criminal case was also lodged against him in Crime No.229 of 2010 on the file of E2, Royapettah Police Station. While so, the said Rajagopal had given a complaint against the petitioner, Jayapaul Mohan alleging that he demanded Rs.2 lakh as illegal gratification to revoke his suspension and to get him posting in a good place. Based on this, PWD Department issued three charge memos against the petitioner and he was not even allowed to retire by the department. The investigation over the said complaint was entrusted with the second respondent Kumara Gurubaran, Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption. During the course of investigation, on 26.2.2015, the second respondent Mr.Kumara Gurubaran, Inspector of Police, wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer for procuring the documents numbering 10 relating to said Rajagopal from the office of AEE, Building Maintenance, DMS Campus, Teynampet, Chennai. In compliance of the said request, the Executive Engineer, PWD instructed the Section Superintendent to retrieve the documents relating to Rajagopal and handed over the same to the Inspector of Police, Mr.Kumara Gurubaran. In the said letter itself, the Inspector of Police had acknowledged the receipt of the documents. Therefore, the Inspector of Police, Mr.Kumara Gurubaran, had collected the documents in his capacity as an Investigation Officer during the course of investigation of a matter relating to illegal gratification made against the petitioner by said Rajagopal. Therefore, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that there is no truthfulness in the allegations made by the petitioner against the first and second respondents in his complaint made by him under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate, without applying the mind in the manner provided and without even looking into the matter prima facie to find out the genuineness of the complaint as to whether the information provided by the petitioner would prima facie disclose any cognizable offence, etc., has ordered investigation in exercise of his power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which is not sustainable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in view of the above discussion, I am entirely in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the first respondent.