Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. The above petition seems to have been filed with a prayer to add the sections of law i.e. sections 120-B r/w 468,468,471,420 r/w 511 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as against the following three persons:

1. N.Ayyamuthu, Head Constable 1469
2. V.Chandru @ Ranjithchander , son of Mr.Venkatapathy &
3. S.Rengaraj, son of Subbiah Gowder.

7. Originally, as per the orders of this Court dated 22.04.2008 and made in W.P.No.7389 of 2005, the First Information Report was registered in FCMA1/2008-A-0029 on 25.06.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. under Sections 279, 338 IPC by one Mr. R.Ravi (PW16), Inspector of Police attached to CBI/ACB Chennai against the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. TN-37-AJ-3226 (Pajero Car). In the FIR there was no mention about the name of the driver, who drove the vehicle at the material time. In connection thereof, the Inspector Police attached to CBI/ACB, has stated in his petition filed before this Court, that the records such as FIR, FIR index, carbon copy of case diary file, letter of inspector addressed to the RTO (South) Coimbatore for inspection of vehicle , docket sheet, counterfoil and charge sheet etc., clearly show that the accident was caused by Mr. Chandru, son of Venkatapathy and Mr. N.Ayyamuthu, Head Constable had forged and fabricated another charge sheet and Mr. S.Rengaraj was forced to admit the guilt. He would further state that since the investigation had revealed that Mr. Ayyamuthu, the Head Constable, in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with Chandru and S.Rengaraj, had abused his official position and had forged and filed a fake charge sheet against S.Rengaraj and in pursuance of the same Mr. S.Rengaraj had also falsely admitted the guilt before the trial Court. According to the Inspector of Police, Mr. R.Ravi, (PW 16), the above facts prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, r/w 468,468,471 & 420 IPC r/w 511 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A3 and substantive offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC against Chandru.

19. The learned Special Judge, Coimbatore based on the final report filed by PW16 Investigating Officer (CBI) had framed the following four charges as against the appellant Thiru.Ayyamuthu: 

1)	Under Section 120-B  of IPC                       (two counts);
2)	Under Section 468 of  IPC                           (three counts);
3) 	Under Section 471 of IPC                           (three counts);
4)	Under Sections 420 r/w 511 of IPC          (two counts); &
5)	Under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
22. NOW THEREFORE, I, K.Shanmugavel, IPS do hereby accord sanction under Section 19(1)(C) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 for the prosecution of Shri V.N.Ayyamuthu, HC 1469 in a Court of law for the offences punishable under Section 120-B r/w 468 IPC, 468 IPC, 471 IPC,420 IPC r/w 511 IPC and U/Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act 1988 for taking cognizance of the said offence by the Court of Competent jurisdiction. 

25. As it appears from paragraph 22 the order of sanction has been accorded under Section19(1)(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to launch prosecution against the appellant. It is to be noted that besides the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant has also been charged with Sections 120B r/w Sections 468,468,471 and 420 r/w 511 of IPC.

Since the specimen handwritings and the specimen signature of the appellant were not obtained in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, the evidence given by PW 12 cannot be considered and taken into account.

With reference to charges

148. The learned Special Judge has found the Appellant/Ayyamuthu (A1) guilty under Sections 468,471 IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, he has found him not guilty under Sections 120-B, 420 r/w 511 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Challenging his conviction and sentence recorded under Section 468, 471 IPC and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant Ayyamuthu has preferred the Appeal in Crl.Appeal No.71 of 2015,whereas against the order of acquittal recorded in respect of the charges under Section 120-B, 420 r/w 511 IPC and under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the complainant has preferred another Appeal in Crl.Appeal No.509 of 2016. Therefore, this Court is under obligation to see whether all the charges under Sections 120-B, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 511 IPC and under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are proved against the appellant.