9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined him from lifting any casuarina growth. He met the said MRO on the next day informing him that no part of the Government land was mixed up with his land. Allegedly, a demand for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was made from him by the MRO. While the talks were going on, the appellant, allegedly, intervened and asked him to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. When he again met the MRO, he was informed that he would not be permitted to remove the casuarina trees until the demanded amount was paid. On the basis of the said complaint dated 11.12.1988, a purported pre-trap proceedings started at 3 p.m. on 12.12.1988. The trap party consisting of 8 persons, allegedly, started for the village of which Appellant was a resident. They reached the village in the evening. The informant did not know the location of the residential house of the appellant. According to P.W.2, an unknown person had led them thereto. The said person examined himself as D.W.1 being Yannamsetti Appalanaidu and not by the prosecution. Offer of the said sum of Rs. 2,000/- was, allegedly, made to the appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly accepted. He is said to have been caught red handed. Apart from usual pleas, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing on behalf of the appellant, in support of this appeal, inter alia, would submit that the High Court should not have interfered with a well-reasoned judgment of the learned Special Judge. Mr. P. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would support the judgment. It is one of the few cases where apparently an innocent officer appears to have been prosecuted for no fault on his part. 7. P.W.2 had sold away his land to P.W.3. The casuarina growth was being cut by its owner, namely, P.W.3. The purported obstruction in his activity came from the Mandal Revenue Officer and not from the appellant. A complaint was made against four persons, the MRO being one of them. Indisputably, it was the MRO who had asked for the said sum. P.W.2, although, went to the said MRO continuously for a few days, no attempt was made by him to offer the sum to the said officer himself. The complaint was made 15 days after the alleged demand. In the meanwhile, the casuarina growth was cut and removed by P.W.3 without any further hindrance purported to be relying on or on the basis of the assurances made by P.W.2 that the dispute had been settled. The complaint was made to the Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oceedings, but in this case it was arranged within 40 minutes. The trap party proceeded in an official car. Eight persons travelled in the same car. Why so many persons travelled in one car, is not explained. Why so many persons had to travel together is also beyond our comprehension. A trap proceeding envisages secrecy and not a wide publicity. It reached Chodavaram at about 6.10 p.m. P.W.2, admittedly, was not travelling with them. He was taken to the spot by the said Shri Ram Murthy. P.W.2 did not know D.W.1 at all. It was D.W.1 who not only led the raiding party to the house of the appellant, he pressed the call bell also. Why services of an unknown person, who was not known to P.W.2, were taken, remained to be explained. Even the circumstances in which his services had to be obtained were not disclosed. The appellant, at that time, had already taken his dinner. They were, allegedly, taken inside a bed room, which is again wholly unlikely. According to P.W.2, after him several other persons entered the room whom he did not know. Why persons who were not connected with the raid gathered and entered into the room and even could know in which room the money was lying is a mystery. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. - (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) or Sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. Furthermore, even in such a case, the burden on an accused does not have to meet the same standard of proof, as is required to be made by the prosecution. 13. In M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2006CriLJ4607 , this Court held: Moreover, the onus on an accused is not as heavy as that of the prosecution. It may be compared with a defendant in a civil proceeding. 14. In Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
