PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

S.7 & 13(2)--Illegal gratification--Acquittal--Material discrepancy in testimony of PW8 (DSP vigilance) and PW9 (Official independent witness) regarding recovery of tainted money from appellant--PW8 categorically deposed that one currency note of Rs.500/- and three currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each and fourteen currency notes of denomination of Rs.50/- each were recovered from pocket of shirt of appellant--However, PW-9 deposed that all currency notes which were recovered from pocket of shirt of appellant were of denomination of Rs.500/- each--PW-9 is witness who had tallied number of currency notes with numbers already noted down in a memo--In these circumstances this discrepancy cannot be treated a minor discrepancy but is a major discrepancy which makes prosecution story doubtful especially when complainant and shadow witness have not supported prosecution case--Accused liable to be acquitted.; Ramesh Chander v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 779
S.7 & 13(2)--Illegal gratification--Acquittal--Tempering with nip parcels--Solutions of hand wash and shirt pocket wash of appellant were put in sealed nips--As per PW-8 he had handed over said nips to MHC on date of recovery--PW-3, constable disposed that on 22.9.1997 he had been handed over two nips in question by MHC for depositing same in FSL--However, MHC in whose custody nips had remained from 11.9.1997 to 22.9.1997 had not been examined--In these circumstances, link evidence was missing and there was every possibility of tempering with nip parcels during this period--Absence of link evidence in facts and circumstances of case gains significance as complainant and shadow witnesses have not supported prosecution case--Accused liable to be acquitted of charge framed against him as prosecution had failed to prove its case against appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.; Ramesh Chander v. State of Punjab, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 779

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988

PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
S.7 r/w 13--Illegal gratification--Acquittal--Case of complainant that as he wanted to raise unauthorized construction bribe was accepted by accused District Town Planner--Bribe money was taken in sweet box at time of raid--In these circumstances plea taken by accused that she was handed over sweet box on pretext that it was parsad appears to be probable--On finding money in sweet box accused threw box and consequently by phenolphthalein powder which was applied on currency notice came on hands of accused were washed in a solution of sodium bicarbonate colour of solution turned pink--Moreover, possibility of handing over tainted money to accused to get her falsely involved in the case cannot be ruled out--No interference in order of acquittal called for. ; State of Haryana v. Ms.Mandalsa Rani,: 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 546

Merely because amount was placed in drawer of appellant does not mean that same was demanded and accepted by appellant

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover
Crl.Appeal No. 418-SB of 1997
Harbans Singh (since deceased) through L.Rs.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 21/12/2009}
For the Appellant: Mrs. Baljit Mann, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Assistant Advocate General.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bribe--Merely because amount was placed in drawer of appellant does not mean that same was demanded and accepted.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, S.13(2) r/w S.7--Demand of Bribe--Whether proved--Merely because amount was placed in drawer of appellant does not mean that same was demanded and accepted by appellant--No independent witness examined--There are serious discrepancies in statement of complainant who himself has been involved as a witness in various cases--Discrepancies in statement of shadow witness who stated that recovery was not affected in his presence--Held, that prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of bribe by appellant--Case against appellant not proved beyond reasonable doubt--Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside--Appellant acquitted of charge. (P.20)

------------