ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

No mention of judgement and order in the amended memo is no ground to reject the appeals

LinkedIn


Court :
Supreme Court

Brief :
The sole accused in Special Calendar Case No.49 of 2011 onthe file of Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, has filed these appeals, aggrieved by the conviction recorded vide judgment dated 28.08.2020 and 22.09.2020 andsentence imposed vide order dated 15.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short,‘the Act’).

Citation :
Appeal Number : Criminal Appeal Nos. 100­-101 of 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 100101
OF 2021
[Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.47294730
of 2020]

N.Vijayakumar …..Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The sole accused in Special Calendar Case No.49 of 2011 onthe file of Special Court for Trial of Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Madurai, has filed these appeals, aggrieved by the conviction recorded vide judgment dated 28.08.2020 and 22.09.2020 andsentence imposed vide order dated 15.09.2020 and 29.09.2020 by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short,‘the Act’).

3. The appellantaccused was working as Sanitary Inspector in 8th Ward of Madurai Municipal Corporation. He was chargesheeted for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Act alleging that he demanded an amount of Rs.500/and a cell phone asillegal gratification from PW2(Thiru. D. Gopal), who was working as Supervisor in a Voluntary Service Organisation called Neat And Clean Service Squad (NACSS), which was given sanitation work on contract basis in Ward No.8 of Madurai Corporation. It was the case of theprosecution that to send his report for extension of work beyond the period of March 2003, when PW2has approached him on 09th and10th of October 2003, such a demand was made, as such appellant being a public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification on10th of October 2003 as a motive or reward to do an official act inexercise of his official function and thereby he has committedmisconduct which is punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d)of the Act. On denial of charge, charges were framed against him forthe aforesaid offences and he has pleaded not guilty. Therefore, hewas tried before the Special Court for the aforesaid alleged offences. During the trial, on prosecution side, 12 witnesses were examined, i.e.PW1 to PW12; and 17 exhibits – Ex.P1 to P.17 and M.O.1 to M.O.4.have been marked. No defence witness was examined and Ex.D1 to D3 were marked during the crossexamination of PW6.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 13 February 2021
Published in LAW
Views : 64
downloaded 23 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags