Research › Browse › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 724 (MAD)

A. SADASIVAM v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

1997-07-22

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body1997
Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) WOULD the hedge graze on the crop? Yes in the instant case. I could see a small hedge swallowing the entire crops. ( 2 ) THE alleged swallower is the petitioner-Sadasivam aged about 45 years a resident of Katpadi. The petitioner working as a Police Constable in Ambur Taluk Police Station is seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against him in Cr. No. 5 of 1997 for the offence under Section 420 I. P. C. on the file of District Crime Branch. Vellore, North Arcot District. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that both the complainant and the petitioner hail from one and the same village and are inimically disposed of for several years and hence a false complaint had been lodged against the petitioner and requests this Court to grant anticipatory, bail to the petitioner. ( 4 ) THE facts of this case are (i) One Radhakrishanan of Kaveripattu village, Jolarpet Taluk, the complainant herein after finishing his school final joined in TAW Shoe Company at Ambur. The petitioner Sadasivam working as a Police Constable at Ambur Police Station, developed friendship with him. (ii) In course of time when the complainant wanted to have a permanent job, the petitioner represented that he would arrange to get the job of Police Constable. The father of the complainant also represented the petitioner to secure a job for his son, the complainant herein. Initially the petitioner Sadasiva informed them that they would have to spend a minimum of Rs. 15,000/- for getting the post of Police Constable. (iii) On 13-12-1995, the complainant gave Rs. 500/ - along with the application form. Some days later the petitioner came and demanded the complainant, a sum of Rs. 10,000/for the purpose, giving the same to Deputy Inspector General. Madras. On believing the same, the complainant and his father approached one Srinivasan, and obtained Rs. 10,000/-, on executing a promissory note on 19-12-1995 and handed over the said sum to the petitioner in his house at Arani. (iv) Again on 28-12-1995, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and demanded another sum of Rs. 5,000/-for the same, being paid to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore. So, the complainant and his father obtained Rs. 5. (iv) Again on 28-12-1995, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and demanded another sum of Rs. 5,000/-for the same, being paid to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore. So, the complainant and his father obtained Rs. 5. 000/- as loan from the Beedi Company where the father of the complainant is working and handed over the same to the petitioner. (v) Again, two days later, the petitioner along with his wife came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 10,000/-since the said amount is urgently to be paid to the Superintendent of Police, Madras. Out of anxiety to get the post of Police Constable being a permanent job the complainant and his father went to Bangalore and obtained a loan of Rs. 10,000/-from a bakery, where the complainants brother Premkumar is working. This amount of Rs. 10,000/- was handed over to the petitioner at his house on 23-1-199 6. (vi) Again in the third week of January. 1996, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 15,000/- since the said amount is to be urgently paid to the Superintendent of Police, Vellore, so that the complainant could get the job soon. For complying the said demand, the father of the complainant mortgaged his land with one Balraman, a teacher, and obtained Rs. 15,000/- and went to Tolgate, Vellore, where the petitioner shifted his residence and handed over the said sum at his house. (vii) Again on 8-3-1996, on his demand another sum of Rs. 1,200/-was given since he demanded the said amount to be paid towards the mess bill. This also was obtained by the (viii) complainant, through hand loan. (ix) Again in the first week of April. 1996, the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and informed the father of the complainant that unless he gives another sum of Rs. 10. 000/-for being paid to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras he would not get the job. Therefore having already spent a lot of amount to get the job and having not inclined to loose the opportunity of getting the said job the complainant and his father went to the aforesaid Beedi Company and obtained Rs. 10. 000/-for being paid to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madras he would not get the job. Therefore having already spent a lot of amount to get the job and having not inclined to loose the opportunity of getting the said job the complainant and his father went to the aforesaid Beedi Company and obtained Rs. 10,000/- from the Manager of the said Company on terms that the said loan may be recovered from his salary and on 10-4-1996, they handed over the said sum to the petitioner at his house in the presence of his wife and children. (x) Again on 29-4-1996, the petitioner demanded another sum of Rs. 3,000/-from the complainant. This amount was obtained from the Company, in which the complainant is working and handed over to the petitioner. (xi) Despite the receipt of all these amounts since the complainant and his father did not receive any message over the development in the process of getting the job of Police Constable they began to insist the petitioner to arrange for the job or else to repay the amount. This time the cat has come out of the bag. In the sense the petitioner challenged the complainant that he would not repay the amount and the complainant and his father could hike any action whatsoever, they want, as there is no documentary evidence available with them for the payment of the said amount. (xii) Having got dejected and distressed the complainant Radhakrishnan, at last sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 1-7-1997, who in turn forwarded it to the respondent for registering the same. ( 5 ) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. I have also gone through the case diary. ( 6 ) THE Investigating Officer has taken pains and effective steps for making a thorough investigation in this case and examined all the persons concerned who gave loan amounts to the complainant and his father on various occasions. The Investigating Officer has also collected the promissory notes and other documents to prove that the complainant who in hailing from a very ordinary family has collected loan amounts from his Company the bakery in which his brother is working at Banglore, and from the Beedi Company, in which his father is working. The Investigating Officer has also collected the promissory notes and other documents to prove that the complainant who in hailing from a very ordinary family has collected loan amounts from his Company the bakery in which his brother is working at Banglore, and from the Beedi Company, in which his father is working. ( 7 ) FROM the petition it could be seen that the petitioner is aged about 45 years. Presumably, he must be put in a considerable period of service in the police department. It is quite shocking to see how an ignorant villager who claimed himself as a person completing school final had been lured by the petitioner, who is a member of the law enforcing agency by collecting huge amounts stating that these amounts could be paid to the senior police officials. ( 8 ) THE materials collected so far disclose that there is a prima facie case as against the petitioner. On the basis of these materials, I may say that the petitioner, who is a blacksheep in the Tamil Nadu Police which is known for its integrity and uprightness, is a menace to the society. ( 9 ) THE Apex Court has held that anticipatory bail could not be granted for mere asking and to a certain extent the petitioner has to make out his cases for getting the said relief But, in the instant case, from the materials collected so far, prima facie it is seen that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. More so, he is not fit to be in the rolls of the police department. ( 10 ) HENCE the petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed Petition dismissed.