M.THANIKACHALAM
G. Manickam – Appellant
Versus
State rep. By Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, Krishnagiri – Respondent
The accused in C.C.No.16 of 1990 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, is the appellant.
2. The accused/appellant was employed as Junior Assistant (B-3 Section), Taluk Office, Harur. In the said office, he was handling B-3 Section, which deals with the issuance of Community Certificate. The defacto complainant-Velliangiri having filed an application for obtaining Community Certificate approached the accused/appellant and it seems for processing the file and for issuing certificate, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.400/-originally, then reduced the same to Rs.300/- on 23. 1989 which was agreed to by the defacto complainant to be given on the next day. However, the defacto complainant reported the matter to the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Department, who have arranged a trap proceedings. In the trap proceedings, the amount demanded by the accused, accepted by him were established, leading to investigation of the case, preceded by registration of the crime. Thus accusing, the respondent has filed a case before the court concerned seeking appropriate punishment since the accused/appellant being a public servant, committed the offenc
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.