Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2441 (MAD)

Abdul Majeeth v. Kailasam & Another

2009-07-17

G.RAJASURIA

body2009
Judgment :- Challenging and impugning the order dated 29. 2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in C.C.No.117 of 2006, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:- The revision petitioner herein filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, as against the respondents herein. Whereupon, after recording the sworn statement of the revision petitioner/complainant, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 342, 343, 346 and 161 IPC and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and posted the matter for enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. (b) During enquiry, the revision petitioner/complainant examined himself as P.W.1 along with four others as Pws.2 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P3 were marked. (c) Ultimately, the lower Court dismissed the complaint, without issuing summons to the accused. .3. Being aggrieved by and disconcerted with the said order of the learned Magistrate, this revision case is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus: .The learned Magistrate failed to take into account the oral and documentary evidence placed on record on the petitioners side. .4. At this juncture, it is just and necessary to narrate briefly the accusation as against the respondents herein. On 211. 2005 at about 10.00 a.m., the petitioner Abdul Majeeth was accompanying the log carried in the lorry bearing Registration No.1332, driven by Swaminathan from Nellithurai Village to Mettupalayam. While proceeding so, near Kattur Railway Gate, R1-Kailasami-the Sub Inspector of Police intercepted the vehicle and inspected it suspecting that some teakwood trees were cut illegally and transported. He took the lorry with goods and also the accused to the police station and kept them there illegally up to 211. 2005 and thereafter lodged a report with the Forest Officer, so as to register a case as against the persons concerned, including the revision petitioner herein and the driver. .5. He took the lorry with goods and also the accused to the police station and kept them there illegally up to 211. 2005 and thereafter lodged a report with the Forest Officer, so as to register a case as against the persons concerned, including the revision petitioner herein and the driver. .5. It is the specific complaint of the revision petitioner that while they were under illegal detention, the Deputy Superintendent of Police demanded bribe from P.W.5-Mani @ Saravanan to the effect that if he could pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(rupees two lakhs) he would release the vehicle, the goods and also release the accused persons without any case and since his illegal demand for gratification was not acceded to, he had chosen to lodge the report through his subordinate R1, with the Forest Officer, as stated supra. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, by inviting the attention of this Court to the depositions of the witnesses, would develop his argument to the effect that the complaint lodged by the revision petitioner was proper in all aspects, nonetheless the Chief Judicial Magistrate did not take note of the same. 8. A plain reading of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as the records would exemplify and demonstrate, highlight and spotlight the fact that the Chief Judicial Magistrate correctly and appropriately analysed the evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the said Mani @ Saravanan-P.W.5, from whom bribe was allegedly demanded, himself has not either sent any complaint to the appropriate authority or figured himself as the complainant. Even though P.W.2-Dr.Suseela and her husband P.W.4, who is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, had the knowledge of occurrence, nonetheless no action has been taken immediately as against the alleged demand of bribe by R2 and that caused doubt in the mind of the Court. 9. Ex.P1 which is relied on by the revision petitioner would exemplify and demonstrate that absolutely there is no shard or shred, miniscule or scintilla, iota or molecular extent of version imputing that R2 demanded bribe from Mani @ saravanan. It is clear that Ex.P1 emerged almost on 211. 2005 as revealed by the speed post receipt. Had really on 211. 2005 there had been any demand of bribe that must have found a mentioning in Ex.P1. It is clear that Ex.P1 emerged almost on 211. 2005 as revealed by the speed post receipt. Had really on 211. 2005 there had been any demand of bribe that must have found a mentioning in Ex.P1. As such, non specification of such demand of bribe by R2 in Ex.P1, is fatal to the very complaint. Hence, I could see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in discarding the complaint concerning the allegation relating to corruption. .10. However, what I could see from the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is that he has totally forgotten to consider the allegations of unlawful detention, by the police official concerned. It is the specific case of the complainant that he and the driver were detained from 211. 2005 till 211. 2005 illegally in police station and to that effect he also gave his evidence. Absolutely there is no proper discussion on the part of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order. Perhaps, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, on seeing that the complaint of corruption was not made out and that there is no prima facie ground for proceeding further, had chosen to simply reject the entire complaint. 11. I am of the considered opinion that to the limited extent of further probing into the allegation of illegal detention, the matter has to be remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for considering further and disposing of the matter as per law. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the limited purpose. The criminal revision case is ordered accordingly.