9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 1025X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and is subsequently acquitted of the charge under Section 7, can still be convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the aforesaid Act. 2. The appellant and one Kewal Kumar were convicted by the Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ₹ 2000, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The co-accused, Mahesh Kumar was, however, acquitted of all the charges. 3. According to the prosecution, on 23-4-2002, one Anil Kumar, son of Kewal Prakash Mehta, made an application to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to hand over the bribe money which he had taken from the complainant. Kewal Kumar indicated that the money had been given to Mahesh Kumar and on demand Mahesh Kumar made over the same to the Inspector. The hands of both Kewal Kumar and Mahesh Kumar were got washed separately in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of which turned pink. 6. The accused were put under arrest and after police investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against them in court for their trial. All the three accused were charged under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) of the abovementioned Act and were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinbefore. The judgment and order of the trial court was questioned before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 427 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of conviction. In this regard, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu wherein while considering the case of abducting and triple infanticide, this Court had occasion to consider whether reliance could be placed on the opinion of the Assistant State Examiner of Documents without examining him as a witness in Court. This Court held that from the opinion itself it could not be gathered whether his office would fall within the purview of Section 293 CrPC. Accordingly, the Court observed that without examining him as an expert witness, no reliance could be placed on his opinion. The learned counsel urged that the conviction of the appellant on the basis of the above could not be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he document, Ext. PR which bears the signature of the complainant, coupled with Ext. PY, the report of the forensic science laboratory, connected the appellant herein with the commission of the crime and it was held that he could not be allowed to go free only because he was not present or apprehended at the time of the raid. 13. The learned counsel for the State submitted that the submissions made on behalf of the appellant did not justify interference of this Court with the impugned judgment of the High Court. 14. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and have also taken note of the fact that the appellant had neither received the bribe money nor was he present at the spot when the same was rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand of one and the same person. The High Court went on to observe that the appellant did not have the courage to examine any counter expert in rebuttal of the report. The High Court recorded that the report having gone unrebutted could be relied upon without any demur. 16. We are afraid that we cannot concur with the views either of the trial court or of the High Court in the above regard. When the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert (Ext. PR), it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the appellant and the other accused to cross-examine the said expert. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant and the other respondents had admitted to the report of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the offence on account of Ext. PR which is said to be in his handwriting. Since the appellant had neither received the money nor was he present at the spot from where the other accused were apprehended, his case has to be treated on a different footing and since his complicity has not been established beyond doubt on the basis of Ext. PR and Ext. PY, he must be given the benefit of doubt. Without, therefore, going into other questions which have been raised in this appeal, we are of the view that the same should be allowed on the aforesaid ground alone. 20. The appeal, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
