Procedural deviations in investigation do not require quashing of proceedings when sufficient evidence exists to support the charges.

ORDER

The petitioner/A1 in Special C.C.No.1 of 2014 facing trial for offence under Sections 7 , 7 r/w 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 and Section 109 IPC before the learned Special Judge, Special Court for cases under the , Coimbatore, has filed this Quash Petition.

2.Gist of the case is that the petitioner/A1, a public servant was formerly working as Sub Registrar, Mettupalayam and A2/Syed Ibrahim a private person employed by the petitioner to do works deputed by the petitioner. On 04.06.2017, one Gunasekaran/LW6 and his wife Umamaheshwari/LW7 decided to purchase the land measuring about 2,264 sq.ft with RCC terrace roof building door No.4F-1 and 4E-2 for a sale consideration of Rs.18,63,000/- from one Rajamani. The said land was situated at Madhaiyan Layout (West), Mettupalayam Municipality. During the third week of November 2017, Gunasekaran/LW6 approached one Swaminathan/LW5, a document writer and his son Praveen @ Ashwin/LW4 for registration of said property.

3.Gunasekaran/LW6 and Praveen @ Ashwin/LW4 approached the petitioner to verify the guideline of the property and to visit the property to value the construction. On 27.11.2017, petitioner inspected the property and informed Praveen @ Ashwin/LW4 that the property can be registered showing it is within Madhaiyan Layout and not within Madhaiyan Layout (West), so that the guideline value can be reduced. For Madhaiyan Layout, the guideline of the property for 1 sq.mtr is Rs.10,825/- and for Madhaiyan Layout (West), the guideline of the property for 1 sq.mtr is Rs.2,530/-. Hence, Gunasekaram/LW6 can have a benefit of not paying the stamp duty and charges of Rs.1,91,915/- for the registration and a bribe amount of Rs.75,000/- demanded by the petitioner. On 28.11.2017, again the petitioner reiterated his demand to Praveen @ Ashwin/LW4 and on 29.11.2017, Praveen @ Ashwin/LW4 informed that the bribe of Rs.75,000/- could not be paid, hence, the demand reduced to Rs.60,000/-. On the same day, at 02.00 p.m., a draft sale deed prepared, at that time, the petitioner instructed Praveen @ Ashwin/LW4 to bring the bribe amount who in turn instructed Gunasekaran/LW6 to bring bribe amount. Gunasekaran/LW6/purchaser went to his bank and withdrew the amount of Rs.60,000/-. At about 04.00 p.m, Praveen @ Ashwin/LW4 had come to the office of the petitioner with Gunasekaran/LW6 and Umamaheshwari/LW7 for registration of sale deed, at that time, as directed by the petitioner, the bribe handed over to A2. The petitioner agreed to register the sale deed without prior registration and token. A2 received the bribe amount in an unused lunch room in old Sub Registrar Office situated adjacent to the new Sub Registrar Office. This illegal gratification received by A2 on behalf of the petitioner.

4.On the same day (29.11.2017), at 05.00 p.m, the respondent made a surprise check, enquired all the persons present in the Sub Registrar Office. The surprise check was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption in presence of Sub-Inspector of Survey, Modern Resurvey Office, Goundampalayam, Assistant Professor, Government Arts College, Coimbatore along with the petitioner. The amount of Rs.60,000/- and other documents seized, thereafter FIR in Crime No.8/2017/AC/CB registered on 30.11.2017, on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed listing LW1 to LW24 and documents LD1 to LD18 arraying the petitioner and Syed Ibrahim as A1 and A2. During investigation, A2 died. Now the case is pending trial against the petitioner alone in Special C.C.No.1 of 2024. Challenging the same the present Criminal Original Petition filed.

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in this case, the informant and Investigati