9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of obtaining additional evidence u/s 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in an appeal against an order of acquittal for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused based on additional evidence, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Additional Evidence u/s 391: The Supreme Court highlighted the discretion available u/s 391 for obtaining additional evidence in appeals. It emphasized that such evidence should not prejudice the accused or lead to a re-trial, but should serve the ends of justice. The Court noted that the power u/s 391 is an exception to the general rule of deciding appeals based on trial court evidence and must be exercised cautiously to ensure justice without necessitating a de novo trial. Factual Background and Additional Examination: The case involved a complaint against the accused for demanding illegal gratification. The High Court conducted an additional examination of the accused during the appeal proceedings to rectify irregularities pointed out by the defense. The Court analyzed the events leading to the charges, including demands made by the accused, the involvement of witnesses, and the subsequent seizure of tainted currency notes. Corroboration and Conviction: The High Court considered the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses regarding the demands made by the accused. However, it examined the circumstances of the case, including the distance between the demand and the seizure of notes, to establish corroboration. The Court rejected the defense's claims of false complaints and lack of evidence against the accused, ultimately upholding the conviction based on the evidence presented. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to convict the accused based on the additional evidence. It found that the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond doubt, emphasizing the role of both accused in the illegal gratification scheme. The Court upheld the conviction, stating that the irregularities in the additional evidence process did not undermine the overall justice served by the judgment.
|
