9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 217 - HC - Indian LawsCriminal Conspiracy - Challenge to impugned order primarily on grounds that the prosecution case is based on speculations and the trial court has failed to appreciate the prosecution story in right perspective - Existence of conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as alleged by the prosecution or not - HELD THAT - In the present case the complainant PW 1 brought one typed complaint in office of CBI which was stated to be not properly addressed. Thereafter another complaint Ex. PW 1/A was retyped in office of CBI and said complaint is basis of registration of present FIR. There is nothing on record which can suggest that the contents of previous complaint which was already typed in office of the complainant PW 1 were materially different from the complaint Ex. PW 1/A which was retyped in office of CBI - The trial court rightly held that there was nothing to prove that there was any material change in the retyped complaint except the proper address as clarified by the complainant PW 1 during his testimony and no importance can be given on aspect of change of complaint in the facts and circumstances. The trial court rightly observed that case law cited on behalf of the appellants as referred herein above can be distinguished under facts and circumstances of present case. It is accepted legal proposition that delay in lodging FIR must be properly explained to rule out chance of manipulation and embellishments. In present case the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh were handling income tax assessment of firm of the complainant i.e. MPVC. The appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as per the complainant initially demanded bribe of Rs. 1.5 lacs in month of October, 2010 which was raised to Rs. 5 lacs in month of December, 2010 which the complainant was not able to pay and thereafter the complainant on 28.12.2010 lodged the complaint Ex. PW 1/A which was basis of registration of FIR. The prosecution under given facts and circumstances of case has properly explained delay in registration of FIR. There is no legal force in arguments advanced on behalf of appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh that there was unexplained delay in registration of FIR. The appellant Baljeet Singh was assisting the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar in the income tax assessment case of MPVC and was writing the order sheets. The trial court further observed that the appellant as per testimony of the complainant PW 1, the appellant Baljeet Singh was continuously in the touch in respect of demand of bribe. The trial court held that in ordinary course of events, it is hard to believe that the complainant PW 1 will go to the extent of lodging false case against the appellant Baljeet Singh on account of minor argument much prior to present case - in consideration of the trial court plea of false implication of the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh by the complainant PW 1 did not inspire any confidence and there is no convincing material on record to accept the plea of false implication. The trial court as such considered plea of false implication of the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh by the complainant PW 1 due to reasons as mentioned hereinabove in detail and in right perspective. The plea of false implication is without any justification and there is no force in arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsels for the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar and the Baljeet Singh that they were falsely implicated at instance of the complainant. Existence of conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh as alleged by the prosecution - HELD THAT - The inference of conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and the Baljeet Singh cannot be based on the shaky ground that the appellant Baljeet Singh met the complainant PW 1 in the room no. 207 which belonged to the appellant Arun Kumar Gurjar. The charge of conspiracy between the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence and has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which it has not been. It is accepted legal proposition that proof of demand and acceptance of the gratification is a sine qua non to constitute offence punishable under section 7 of the PC Act and presumption under section 20 of the PC Act can be invoked only on proof of demand of gratification by the accused and the acceptance thereof. The offence under Section 7 cannot be established unless demand and acceptance are established. It is also accepted legal proposition that mere acceptance of any illegal gratification or recovery thereof in the absence of proof of demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 7 of the PC Act. The prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of the tainted money by the appellant/Arun Kumar Gurjar and substantial doubts are appearing from the evidence led by the prosecution as to the guilt of the appellant Baljeet Singh - The impugned judgment and impugned order passed by the trial court are set aside and appellants are acquitted for the offence for which they were charged. If the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh have deposited any fine in terms of impugned order, they are entitled for refund of fine. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Sanction for Prosecution 2. Delay in Lodging FIR 3. Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe 4. Conspiracy between the Appellants Summary: Sanction for Prosecution: The trial court observed that sanctions for prosecution against the appellants Arun Kumar Gurjar and Baljeet Singh were granted by competent authorities with due application of mind. The trial court held that the sanctions Ex. PW 19/A and Ex. PW 20/A were legally valid, and there was no need for sanction u/s 197 of the Code for the offence u/s 120B IPC as conspiracy to take bribe cannot be connected to the official discharge of duty. Delay in Lodging FIR: The trial court held that the delay in FIR is not fatal if properly explained. The prosecution explained that the complainant approached CBI on 28.12.2010 after the appellants demanded bribe in October and December 2010. The trial court found no unusual delay in lodging the FIR and dismissed the arguments of unexplained delay. Proof of Demand and Acceptance of Bribe: It is a settled legal proposition that proof of demand and acceptance of gratification is a sine qua non to constitute an offence u/s 7 of the PC Act. The trial court noted contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the complainant PW 1, who alleged that the appellants demanded Rs. 5 lakhs to finalize the scrutiny without any hurdle. The trial court observed that the testimony of PW 1 suffers from contradictions and improvements and should be scrutinized with caution. The complainant's testimony and other evidence did not conclusively prove that the appellants made a specific demand for bribe on 29.12.2010. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the twin requirements of demand and acceptance of bribe, which are necessary to prove the offence u/s 7 of the PC Act. Conspiracy between the Appellants: The trial court inferred conspiracy between the appellants based on the facts that Baljeet Singh was assisting Arun Kumar Gurjar in the assessment case of MPVC even after his transfer, and Baljeet Singh was not in a position to grant any favor without instructions from Arun Kumar Gurjar. However, the appellate court found that these facts alone were insufficient to establish an agreement and prior meeting of mind between the appellants. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellants should not have been convicted for the offence u/s 120B IPC read with section 7 of the PC Act. Conclusion: The appellate court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and order, and acquitted the appellants for the offences charged. The court also directed the refund of any fine deposited by the appellants in terms of the impugned order.
|
