This Criminal appeal arises out of the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, Vellore District on 18.7.2002 exonerating charges levelled against the accused under Sections 165A, 166, 167,170 IPC and acquitting the accused.

2. That the appellant herein filed a complaint stating that she is a legally wedded wife of one Chamudi and her marriage has been performed and registered on 5th June 1987 and they are having one Minor male child . The Government is granting family welfare fund for the poor people . Since the kartha of the family died and the appellant being a poor woman, she is entitled for the family welfare fund granted by the Government.

3. The accused is the village administrative Officer and he knows very well that the appellant and her son alone are entitled to the above said family welfare fund, but he falsely represented that one Rajammal is the wife of deceased Chamudi to the Tahsildar in favour of the above said Rajammal. So the appellant gave application before the sub collector, Thirupathur on 7.10.1996, but no action has been taken. Hence she come forward with this private complainant that the accused is liable to convicted under Sections 165 A, 166, 167, 170, 171 and 171B(ii) of IPC.

4. The learned Magistrate after recording sworn statement took cognizance against the accused under Sections 165 A, 166, 167 and 170 IPC. The learned Magistrate after following the procedure and examining the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Ex.P1 to P6, exonerated the accused from the charges levelled against him under the Sections 165 A, 166, 167 and 170 IPC and acquitted the respondent.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the marriage between the complainant and the deceased Chamudi has been proved by way of marking Ex.A1 marriage invitation and Ex.A5 Marriage certificate. Her husband Chamudi was died. Since her husband was expired, she is entitled for the family welfare fund granted by Government for poor people, but false certificate has been issued in favour of one Rajammal facilitating her to receive family welfare fund. Hence the accused/respondent is guilty under the above said provisions.

6. At this juncture the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused would contend that the charge has been framed against this accused under Section 165 A which has been already repealed in pursuance of the amended act repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Since the alleged occurrence has been taken place after the year 1988, so the trial Court has committed error in taking cognizance of the accused under Section 165 A of the Act.

7. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that accused is guilty under Sections 166, 167 and 170 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge after considering all these aspects in a proper perspective, came to this correct conclusion. Hence he prayed for dismissal of this appeal.

8. It is appropriate to consider Sections 161,165 and 165 A of IPC which reads as follows: "Section 161:Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. (Repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), section 31.)" "Section 165: Public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration , from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant. - {Repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section31)" "Section 165-A: "Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 161 or Section 165. -[Repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Section 31]" While perusing these acts, Sections 161, 165 and 165(A)IPC were repealed by Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, so the trial court has committed error in taking cognizance under Section 165 A. The offence under Section 165 A has not been proved by the appellant herein. So the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent is guilty under Section 165 A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document