Court refuses relief to PF official held on bribery charge
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 01.04.2018
Chennai: Refusing any relief to an enforcement officer of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) who was arrested by the CBI in January last under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Madras high court has dismissed his discharge plea.
Justice G Jayachandran passed the order on the plea moved by G Elumalai seeking to set aside the order of the XIII additional special court for CBI cases, Chennai, dated December 28, 2017.
On January 15, CBI had arrested Elumalai along with the prime accused E S Durga Prasad, regional commissioner of EPFO, in an alleged bribery case involving Saveetha Group of Institutions. Five others were also arrested in this connection. According to prosecution, Durga Prasad had allegedly demanded Rs 25 lakh as illegal gratification for favouring the educational group which runs a university and a few colleges in Tamil Nadu. Based on a tip, CBI sleuths laid a trap and nabbed Durga Prasad near Ambattur while accepting a bribe of Rs 14.5 lakh from Sengottiyan. When the plea came up for hearing, Elumalai submitted that he has only discharged his duty as an enforcement officer and there is no evidence to show that he received any amount as illegal gratification. Mere association with the other accused in an official capacity cannot be considered to make him aparty to the conspiracy.
“When no material was seized from me and when no incriminating evidence was placed before the court against me, the prosecution ought to have dropped the proceedings against me,” Elumalai contended. Relying on the evidence given by the prosecution, the judge said it appears from the material that when Durga Prasad received the bribe, this petitioner was present along with him. There is enough material to indicate that the petitioner herein had full knowledge of it and was party to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Since prima facie case is made out against him that is sufficient to frame charges, the request to discharge the petitioner does not arise.
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 01.04.2018
Chennai: Refusing any relief to an enforcement officer of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) who was arrested by the CBI in January last under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Madras high court has dismissed his discharge plea.
Justice G Jayachandran passed the order on the plea moved by G Elumalai seeking to set aside the order of the XIII additional special court for CBI cases, Chennai, dated December 28, 2017.
On January 15, CBI had arrested Elumalai along with the prime accused E S Durga Prasad, regional commissioner of EPFO, in an alleged bribery case involving Saveetha Group of Institutions. Five others were also arrested in this connection. According to prosecution, Durga Prasad had allegedly demanded Rs 25 lakh as illegal gratification for favouring the educational group which runs a university and a few colleges in Tamil Nadu. Based on a tip, CBI sleuths laid a trap and nabbed Durga Prasad near Ambattur while accepting a bribe of Rs 14.5 lakh from Sengottiyan. When the plea came up for hearing, Elumalai submitted that he has only discharged his duty as an enforcement officer and there is no evidence to show that he received any amount as illegal gratification. Mere association with the other accused in an official capacity cannot be considered to make him aparty to the conspiracy.
“When no material was seized from me and when no incriminating evidence was placed before the court against me, the prosecution ought to have dropped the proceedings against me,” Elumalai contended. Relying on the evidence given by the prosecution, the judge said it appears from the material that when Durga Prasad received the bribe, this petitioner was present along with him. There is enough material to indicate that the petitioner herein had full knowledge of it and was party to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Since prima facie case is made out against him that is sufficient to frame charges, the request to discharge the petitioner does not arise.
No comments:
Post a Comment