The collection of flag day contribution is not a perennial affair in a Government Office Says Madras High Court.
TITLE: K. Adikesavan Vs. The Inspector of Police.
Decided On-: July 12, 2023
422 & 439 of 2015 Crl.A.No.422 of 2015
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice G. Jayachandran.
Introduction:
Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., pleased to set aside the sentence and conviction imposed on the appellant in Special Case No.5 of 2010 dated 29.06.2015 passed by the Special Judge/Chief Judge, Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore and acquit the appellant the orders passed.
Facts:
Ramasamy a retired Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government School died on 04/10/2008. His wife Selvambal as widow of a Government pensioner was entitled to get family pension as well as other benefits. She sought the help of her brother Mr.Selvarayar, who during the month of December 2008 went to Sub Treasury Office at Virudhachalam and enquired about the procedures to get family pension of his sister. Adikesavan, the Accountant in the Sub-Registrar Office assisted him to fill the forms meant for family pension and directed him to get the attestation and reference in the application Form from the Assistant Primary Education Officer. He presented the form to the Sub-Treasury Officer on 02.01.2009, after getting the attestation. The Sub Treasury Officer, who received the application form put his initial in it and instructed to meet Adikesavan after a week. A week thereafter, when Selvarayar met Adikesavan, he instructed to open a bank account in the name of Selvambal and to produce a photocopy of the bank passbook. On 06/03/2009 he met Adikesavan and gave a copy of the Bank passbook, further Adikesavan asked photo of the applicant and Selvarayar give his sisters photo which he had with him. Selvarayar asked Adikesavan that
already two months have gone, when the application process will be completed. At that time, Adikesavan said that, if he give money for office expenses, the work will get done. When Selvarayar asked how much money has to be paid, Adikesavan replied Rs.1,500/-. When, Selvarayar sought clarification whether that money is for Government or for him, Adikesavan replied that, it is for him and other staff in the Office. Further, Adikesavan told to bring money on 12/03/2009 at 10.00 a.m. Selvarayar not interested to give bribe, so he went to Cuddalore and gave a complaint at Vigilance and Anti-Corruption.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
Being aggrieved, the 1st accused/Adikesavan has preferred Criminal Appeal No.422 of 2015 and the 2nd accused/Balasubramanian filed Criminal Appeal No.439 of 2015. Pending appeal, on 12/01/2023 Balasubramanian-the appellant in C.A.No.439 of 2015 died. His wife Anbarasi filed a petition to get herself impleaded in the place of her deceased husband Crl.A.Nos.422 & 439 of 2015 and pursue the appeal. Her application Crl.M.P.No.8073 of 2023 was allowed by this Court on 14/06/2023.
No doubt, the sanction to prosecute is not an empty formality, it should be accorded only after proper application of mind and scrutiny of all the documents collected during the investigation. In this case, Ex.P.24 is the Sanction Order, there is no detail of connected records placed before her is mentioned in the sanction order, the application of mind and satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is doubted. The sanction order which runs to four pages contains the detail necessary to arrive at a subjective satisfaction. The details found in the sanction order should have emanated from the records placed before the authority. The accused cannot take umbrage of four months old communication send by the District Collector to collect flag day contribution. The collection of flag day contribution is not a perennial affair in a Government Office. It cannot be a shield for bribe takers. For the above said reason, this Court confirms the judgment of the trial Court passed in Special Case No.5 of 2010 as against A1/K.Adikesavan. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.422 of 2015 is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/A1 and commit him to the prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.439 of 2015 filed by the A2/Balasubramanian and his legal heirs is allowed. The judgment of the trial Court passed in Special Case No.5 of 2010 as against Balasubramanian is hereby set aside.
Conclusion:
This Court confirms the judgment of the trial Court passed in Special Case No.5 of 2010 as against A1/K.Adikesavan. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal No.422 of 2015 is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/A1 and commit him to the prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.