9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Evaluation of evidence and reliability of witnesses. 3. High Court's grounds for setting aside the Special Court's judgment. 4. Supreme Court's assessment of the High Court's judgment and reinstatement of the Special Court's decision. Summary: Issue 1: Conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 The respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3500/- to avoid seizing rifles and arresting the complainant and his brother. Issue 2: Evaluation of evidence and reliability of witnesses The prosecution's case was supported by the complainant, Badan Singh (PW1), and independent witnesses Aditya Chobey (PW6) and Surender Rai Sharma (PW11). The trap was meticulously planned and executed, with phenolphthalein powder applied to the currency notes, which were later recovered from the respondent's pocket, confirming the bribe transaction. Issue 3: High Court's grounds for setting aside the Special Court's judgment The High Court set aside the Special Court's judgment on the following grounds: 1. Discarded the testimony of Badan Singh, PW1, stating the upper right pocket of the shirt is not a normal place for keeping currency notes. 2. Argued that 35 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination could not fit in the upper right pocket without being folded. 3. Suggested that Badan Singh, PW1, might have forced the currency notes into the respondent's pocket. 4. Considered the possibility of phenolphthalein powder traces on the respondent's hands due to resistance. Issue 4: Supreme Court's assessment of the High Court's judgment and reinstatement of the Special Court's decision The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning untenable and erroneous. It emphasized that the recovery of Rs. 3500/- from the respondent was corroborated by Badan Singh, PW1, and independent witnesses. The Court dismissed the argument that previous enmity led to false implication and upheld the Special Court's conviction. The Supreme Court restored the judgment of the Special Court, emphasizing the pervasive issue of corruption and the need for stringent measures against it. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and reinstated the Special Court's decision, convicting the respondent u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500.
|
