1 These SLPs are filed against the judgment dated 12th April, 2001. When these SLPs were called out Mr. Ramamurthy, Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, prayed for an adjournment of four weeks. He submitted that, as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted by the impugned Judgment, the State was going to prefer an Appeal against the same Judgment. Mr Rao opposed the Application on the ground that the Petitioner was in jail. He submitted that if the State wanted an adjournment, for such a long period, then the Petitioner should be released on bail. We, therefore, felt that the best course to follow would be to hear these SLPs today. When the State files its Appeal it can be heard separately.

2 Accordingly leave is granted.

3 Heard parties.

4 By these Appeals the Appellant is challenging his conviction under S.13 (1)(e) read with S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

5 Brief facts leading to these Appeals are as follows:
The Appellant was elected as a member of Legislative assembly from Marungapuri constituency in June 1991. He became the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly on 3rd July, 1991. He was Minister of Education to the Government of Tamil Nadu from 17th Ma