Advocates:
['M/S R SUBRAMANIAN', '', 'J SUDHA', 'M/S T S GOPALAN AND CO']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 04.02.2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R. MALA

CRL.A.NO.1777 OF 2002

Chinnamalli .. Appellant

Vs

Natarajan

Vilage Administrative Officer. ..Respondent

Prayer: Criminal appeal filed under Section 378 Cr..C. Against the

judgment passed in C.C.No.21 of 1998 dated 18.07.2002 on the file

of learned Judicial Magistrate IV, Tirupathhur , Vellore District

acquitting the respondent and praying to setaside the judgment .

For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian

For Respondent: Mr. Karthik for

M/s.T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

JUDGMENT

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 5^th 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.

2(a). 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.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7.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