BAIL SLIP

The Appellant/Accused namely N.Ratinam, S/o.Late Narayanan,

who was ordered to be released on Bail as per Order dated

18/04/2013 made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 made in Crl.A.No.299 of 2013.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATE OF RESERVING ORDER

01.03.2022

DATE OF PRONOUNCING ORDER

19.04.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

CRL.A.NO.299 OF 2013

N.Ratinam

... Appellant/Accused

.Vs.

The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

SPE/CBI/ACB,

Chennai.

... Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER:-

Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal

Procedure Code, to allow this appeal by setting aside the

judgment of the trial Court dated 22.03.2013 in C.C.No.22 of

2009 convicting and sentencing the appellant for three years

rigorous imprisonment concurrently and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for

each count under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and

under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 on the file of the learned Additional Special Judge

for CBI Cases, XIV Additional City Civil Court at Chennai.

For Appellant :

Mr.P.Anand

For Respondent :

Mr.K.Srinivasan

Special Public Prosecutor

For CBI

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction

and sentence passed in C.C.No.22 of 2009 by the XIV Additional

Court for CBI Cases, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The respondent laid a final report against the appellant

alleging that the appellant was working as Superintendent of

Posts, Nagapattinam. On 09.03.2009, he demanded from complainant

Smt.R.Bharathi and her husband Padma Suresh, an illegal

gratification of Rs.5,000/- for him as a motive for processing

the transfer application of Smt.Bharathi dated 06.09.2008 and

10.10.2008. During the course of the same transaction, on

11.03.2009 at about 18.10 hours, appellant demanded and accepted

from Padma Suresh by abusing his official position, a sum of

Rs.5,000/- for the purpose of processing and forwarding the

transfer application of Smt.Barathi, to the Post master General,

Trichy. Thus, the appellant committed the offences under

Sections 7, 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988.

3. On the basis of this final report, the trial Court framed

charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention

of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant/accused denied the

charges and demanded trial.

4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to

P.W.8 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and MO.1 to MO.4 were

produced. On the side of the defence, appellant has not

examined any witness but produced Exs.D1 and D2.

4. The case putforth by the respondent through the evidence

of prosecution witnesses, in brief, is, as follows:

4(i) P.W.1's wife Bharathi was working as Branch Post Master

at Nadapur post office from 2005. P.W.1's wife applied for

transfer, to the post office at Budamangalam Branch in

September, October and December 2008, for the reason that she

found it difficult to travel 40 kms everyday. On 09.03.2009,

P.W.1 met the appellant at his office at about 4.00 pm and

enquired about the status of the transfer application given by

his wife. Appellant demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- to recommend

and forward the transfer application. P.W.1 discussed this

demand with his wife and she was not willing to give bribe.

After discussion, P.W.1 contacted the Superintendent, Central

Bearu of Investigation through phone and complained about the

demand. SP informed him that he would send a team under

Inspector Kumaresan and asked him to give a complaint to him on

11.03.2009. Accordingly, P.W.1 met P.W.6 the Inspector at

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.P.N., Lodge and gave Ex.P3 complaint. After sometime,

Inspector introduced two p