Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had demanded from the complainant to pay Rs.17,000/- for giving electricity connection to the Rice Mill of the defacto complainant. As per the allegation made in the complaint, the complainant S.Venkatachalam had constructed a new rice mill in the residential campus at D.No.4/337 and applied for the service connection in the 1st week of February 2007 seeking 25 HP. On the next day at 4 pm, the petitioner had been to the residence of the defacto complainant along with wireman for taking measurement for the erection of post and had demanded Rs.17,000/- as illegal gratification and informed the complainant to pay the deposit amount separately. On 06.02.2007, when the complainant met the petitioner in his office and remitted Rs.12,050/-, the petitioner is http://www.judis.nic.in alleged to have reiterated his demand, for which, the complainant expressed his inability. On the same day, the petitioner alleged to have gone to the house of the complaint at 5.30 pm and informed that the estimate was ready and reiterated the demand of Rs.17,000/-. On 14.02.2007, the defacto complainant met the petitioner in his office at 2.30 pm and was informed by the petitioner that the estimate was ready and if the amount was paid, the same would be forwarded to the higher authorities. On 16.02.2007, the complainant had been to the electricity board office to make entry in the fuse called register in respect of SC.No.98 in the name of his father, during which time also the petitioner has reiterated his earlier demand and instructed the complainant to pay the same before 19.02.2007. On 19.02.2007 at 11 am, the defacto complainant had been to the office and since the petitioner was on leave contacted through the mobile, who informed that the complainant could meet the petitioner on 20.02.2007 at 11.30 am. On 20.02.2007, the complainant met the petitioner in his office and handed over Rs.10,000/- towards the gratification, which was received by the petitioner for effecting service connection and accordingly the petitioner was arrested.

5. It is also averred in the affidavit that the petitioner had filed the above petition to summon the Zonal Commissioner of Kondalampatty Municipal Corporation and to produce the Assessment details for the property at Door No.4/337, Kamaraj Nagar for the year 2004 to 2009, details of the tax assessment in respect of the defacto complainant for the said period and the tax assessment in the name of the defacto complainant for the year 2007 and the documents relating to Kondalampatty Ward No.50, Door No.456 and 4/337A, Annadhanapatty, Block No.4, Subbu Gounder Assessment No.164785 and the other details. The defacto complainant had misused the tax receipt issued in respect of the property belonging to his father to show that it is an existing rice mill for which additional load is to be supplied, but the fact that the same is a new building for which the petitioner will have to pay additional deposit and not the earlier deposit made and as such the acceptance of Rs.10,000/- is for the additional deposit and not a bribe money. This aspect can be proved only by production of the tax receipts and the tax details along with the approved plan. But the Trial Court has erroneously dismissed his petition based on the contention raised by the prosecution that the present case is in respect of deciding the demand and acceptance of bribe and not deciding the title of the premises in question where the service connection is to be effected.

http://www.judis.nic.in

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein, it is stated that it is false to allege that PW2 Tr.Venkatachalam misused the house tax assessment receipt which stood in the name of his father in getting the EB service connection from the petitioner / accused. PW2 was examined in chief on 16.12.2015 and Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 were marked and M.O.1 was also marked and he was cross examined by the defence on 20.01.2016 and 11.02.2016. PW2 categorically stated in his chief as well as in the cross examination that he presented the application Ex.P2 mentioning the D.No. for which the service connection number is 4/337 and he enclosed the receipt which was mentioned as 4/337-A. PW2, during the cross examination, clearly deposed that the D.No.4/337 was his residential house and D.No.4/337-A is a Rice Mill for which he claimed the new service connection and he has enclosed the sale deed and also the Lincense obtained from the Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation. Further, when PW2 was questioned regarding the Tax Receipt for D.No.4/337-A and corrections made by the officials, it was clearly explained by him in his evidence during the cross examination on 20.01.2016. It is further equally false to allege that the defacto complainant PW2 enclosed the receipt of the Kondalampatti Zone in Annathanapatti Zone and claimed the service connection. It is further false to allege that the petitioner / accused to falsify the prosecution case, summoned the building approval for rice mill and also claimed that the money demanded is only an additional deposit amount to be paid by the PW2 http://www.judis.nic.in Tr.Venkatachalam. It is further submitted that PW2, during the cross examination, categorically stated that he has not obtained any building approval in constructing the rice mill and not even a suggestion was put to PW2 that the amount demanded was an additional deposit amount to be paid by PW2. It is submitted that PW10 Tr.Ponnuvel, the then Assistant Engineer has categorically deposed that the application of PW2 was registered in the Application Register in Page 57 in SL.No.12 on 06.02.2007 by the accused petitioner and Rs.50/- was application fee and Rs.12,000/- towards deposit amount were fixed and the corresponding entries were marked as Ex.P14. There is not even a suggestion put to PW10 regarding the additional deposit amount as claimed by the petitioner / accused. It is an invented story by the defence to escape from the prosecution case and not supported by any documentary evidence.

11. On the side of the respondent / prosecution, it was claimed that the petitioner called upon the records and assessment register for D.No.456, 4/337-A or 4/337. The D.No.456 is not relevant to this case and PW2 Venkatachalam deposed in his evidence that he claimed service connection for D.No.4/337-A and there is no document produced by the petitioner to show that the assessment stands in any other person other than the complainant (PW2). The petitioner has filed this application to call for, the assessment register, tax receipt issued in the name of the father of the complainant and details of tax collection, for the period 2004 to 2009, plan approval and tax receipt for the rice mill for the year 2007 and 2008 along with relevant documents. But the Court is not deciding the title of the complainant in this case and the present case is in respect of deciding the demand and acceptance of bribe for effecting service connection for the proposed rice mill.