TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.01.2006 by which the appeal of the accused-appellant against his conviction under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Trial Court was upheld. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The facts in brief are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') was employed as group D staff, A/C and Power, Harbour Telephone Exchange, Chennai-1 and as such, he was a public servant. It is alleged that the accused demanded and accepted a sum of ₹ 1500/- on 9.11.1992 from Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the cousin of Smt. Nagalakshmi at No. 38, Mosque street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting permanent telephone connection under OYT. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mporary telephone connection and it was processed by V. Narayanaswamy (P.W.8) and extension was approved. As per the release of 747 new telephone connections ordered by AGM (South) on 5.8.1992, Smt. Nagalakshmi was eligible for new telephone connection and Narayanswamy (P.W.8), who was dealing with the file, put up note to regularize the temporary line already available with Smt. Nagalakshmi and to close the temporary line and it was finally approved by the Commercial Officer South (III) on 27.10.1992. On 28.10.1992, the telex message for closing the temporary connection in respect of telephone No. 427112 provided to Smt. Nagalakshmi and simultaneously for providing permanent connection with the same telephone number was transmitted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he made discrete enquiries, in which it came to light that the accused was in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the subscribers, who in the normal course had been allotted telephone connections, in the pretext of getting them new telephone connections. Accordingly, a trap was held as directed by the said Inspector of Police (P.W.4). 6. In the trap conducted by P.W.4 in the presence of Govindarajan (P.W.3), Assistant Manager (vig), UIIC, Royapetah, Madras and one G. Sankaran, the accused demanded and accepted a sum of ₹ 1500/- on 9.11.1992 from Kumaresan (P.W.2), who is the causing of Smt. Nagalakshmi at No. 38, Mosque Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26, as illegal gratification for getting permanent teleph ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he was in the habit of demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the subscribers. We, therefore, see no reason to disagree with the findings of the trial court and High Court or with the punishment awarded to accused. There is no dispute that the sanction order was passed by the competent authority. Dr. A. Chelliah, learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that the sanction order was vitiated as there was no material on which it could have been passed. We do not agree. 9. In this connection, it may be mentioned that we cannot look into the adequacy or inadequacy of the material before the sanctioning authority and we cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the sanction order. The order granting sanction shows that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
