A telephone bribery prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court allowed the appeal, gave the accused the benefit of doubt, set aside the conviction and sentence, and discharged his bail-bond liabilities.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant discharged from liabilities under his bail bonds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.297 of 2002 =========================================================== Rajeshwar Yadav, son of Late Soman Yadav, resident of Mohalla M/3, Officers‟ Flat, New Punaichak, Patna, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. The Union of India, through C.B.I. Patna Opposite parties.... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha (SCCBI) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-08-2013
This is an appeal preferred by the solitary appellant against his conviction for the offence under sections 7 and 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) © of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter said as Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for each of the offences. However, sentences will run concurrently as awarded by the Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 83 of 1992, R.C. No. 38 (A) of 1992 on 11th June, 2002.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
2
employee R.N. Sharma (not examined) was lodged with the S.P. C.B.I. (Not examined) after initial verification and report Ext. 6 a team of officials including independent witnesses called from the Branch of State Bank of India was arranged for trap and demonstration was made by P.W. 12 before the Team and they were instructed properly what to do. Required currency notes were also made ready after pouring phenolphthalein powder and as per pre-trap memorandum Ext 9 everything was arranged and the team proceeded and when the appellant accepted after due conversation Rs.1,000/- as agreed for installation of one connection, first he was taken into custody got from his office to C.B.I. Office, recovery, seizure and other legal other formalities as per recovery memo Ext 11 were prepared, obtaining sanction etc. charge sheet was submitted.
besides producing a good number of documentary evidence such as:-
Ext.1- Signature on Advice note. Ext.2 & 2/1- Advice Note. Ext.3- Sanction order. Ext.4- Advice No. 313 Mark „X‟ for identification- Photo copy of advice notes dated 17.10.92. Mark „Y‟ for identification- Letter dt. 11.11.92 of Ram Narayan Sharma.
Mark „Y/1‟ for identification- Letter dt. 11.11.92 of Prabeen Kumar Ext.5- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on bottal No. 507A. Ext.5/1- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on sealed envelop of piece of Paper.
Ext.5/2- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on sealed envelop of Phenolphthalein Exts. 5/3 to 5/6- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on preliminary memorandum Ext. 5/7- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on sealed envelop of Rs. 1000/-
Ext.5/8- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on bottal of left hand wash. Ext. 5/9- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on bottal of shirt wash. Ext. 5/10- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on sealed envelop of shirt. Ext. 5/11- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on sealed envelop of Carbonate powder.
Ext. 5/12- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on sealed envelop of Rs. 840/-.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
3
Ext. 5/13- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on sealed envelop of Rs. 300/Ext. 5/14 to Ext. 5/17- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on memo of recovery. Ext. 2/2- Advice Note. Ext. 5/18- Signature of Sri Krishna Choudhary Ext. 6- Verification report. Mark Z to Z/2 for identification- Demand Note. Ext. 7- Complaint. Ext. 8- Expert report. Ext. 5/19- Signature of Sri M.K.Sinha on envelop of piece of paper. Ext. 5/20- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on D/W bottal. Ext. 5/21- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on envelop of powder use. Ext. 5/22 to 5/25- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on preliminary Memorandum. Ext. 5/26- Signature of Sri Mahendra Kr. Sinha on envelop of tainted amount Rs. 1000/-. Ext. 5/27- Signature of Sri Mahendra Kr. Sinha on envelop of money of Rs. 840/-. Ext. 5/28- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on envelop of recorded money of Rs. 300/-. Ext. 5/29- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on Right hand wash bottal. Ext. 5/30- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on left hand wash bottal; Ext. 5/31- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on pocket wash bottal. Ext. 5/32- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on envelop of shirt. Ext. 5/33- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on envelop of sodium Carbonate powder. Ext. 5/34 to 5/37- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on recovery memorandum. Ext. 5/38- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on search list. Ext. 5/39- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on search list. Ext. 5/40- Signature of Sri M.K. Sinha on search list. Ext. 5/41- Signature of Sri Sita Ram on search list. Ext. 9- Preliminary report. Ext. 5/42- Signature of J.P. Mishra on Phenolphthalein powder Envelop. Ext. 5/43- Signature on piece of paper demonstration. Ext. 5/44- Signature of J.P. Mishra on Demonstration wash bottal. Ext. 5/45- Signature of J.P. Mishra on G.C. Note envelop. Ext. 5/46- L.H.Wash Bottal Signature of J.P. Mishra. Ext. 5/47- R.H. Wash Bottal Signature J.P. Mishra. Ext. 5/48- Shirt pocket wash bottal signature J.P. Mishra. Ext. 5/49- Signature J.P. Mishra on Sodium Carbonate envelop. Ext. 5/50 to 5/51- Signature J.P. Mishra on personal search G.C. note two envelop. Ext.5/52 to 5/55- Signature of J.P. Mishra on Recovery of Memorandum. Ext. 10- F.I.R. Ext. 5/56 to 5/59- Signature of Nagendra Prasasd on preliminary
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
4
Memorandum.
Ext. 5/60 to 5/63- Signature of R.N. Sharma on Preliminary Memorandum (Complainant). Ext. 5/64 to 5/65- Signature of Nagendra Prasasd and R.N. Sharma on G.C. Note envelop.
Ext. 5/66 to 5/67- Signature of Nagendra Pd. On Personal search G.C. Note two envelop of Rs. 840 and 300. Ext. 5/68 to 5/69- Signature of R.N. Sharma on personal search G.C. Note envelops two. Ext. 5/70 to 5/75- Signature of Nagendra Pd. And R.N. Sharma on R.H.W. Bottals & H.N. Bottal and shirt wash Bottal.
Ext. 5/76 to 5/77- Signature of Nagendra Pd. And R.N. Sharma Ext. 5/78 to 5/79- Signature of Nagendra Pd. And R.N. Sharma on sodium carbonate envelop. Ext. 11- Recovery Memorandum. Ext. 5/80 to 5/87- Signature of Nagendra Pd. Snd R.N. Sharma on Recovery Memorandum. Ext.12 to 12/1- Search List two sheets. Ext. 5/88 to 5/89- Signature on phenolphthalein envelop of Nagendra Pd. And R.N. Sharma. Ext. 5/90 to 5/91- Demonstration piece of paper; Signature of N. Pd and R.N. Sharma. Ext. 5/92 to 5/93- D.W. writing signature Nagendra Pd. And R.N. Sharma.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
5
appellant at the instance of employer of the complainant who was annoyed with the appellant on his refusal to otherwise oblige.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
6
prosecution as required U/S 19 of the Act which reads as such:-
“19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution:- (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction-
(a)in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b)in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
©in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.
(2)Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub. Section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
(a)no finding, sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub. Section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
(b)no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice;
(c )no court shall stay the proceeding under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers or revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceeding.
(4)In determining under sub. Section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this
section-
(a)error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
7
(b)a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.”
Hence, the decision cited and relied upon by the Bar in the case reported in 2006 (7) SCC 172, A.I.R. 1974 SC 1024 and 2009 (15) SCC 72 need no further consideration and discussion.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
8
where initially appellant works and after finishing job comes to main office which is at Budh Marg and he further admits that at the relevant date i.e. 11.11.1992 in the office of U.S. Steel Industries telephone connection had already been provided. Of course, he expressed his inability to say that due to lack of cable line no connection was provided at Janipur and further he explains that since no complain was made he has not enquired.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
9
Thereafter everyone who had touched phenolphthalein power washed their hands and it was kept under seal whereon this witness put his signature which marked as Ext. 5/2 and all the members including this witness put their signatures on the prepared preliminary memorandum and he proved his signature as Exts. 5/3 to 5/6 and thereafter the team proceeded with their destination at the office of the S.D.O. Telephone Building, West Patna. One of the two independent witnesses M.K. Sinha, P.W.10 along with complainant entered into the office of the appellant and he and others stayed at near by places some time thereafter M.K. Sinha, P.W.10 came out of the chamber and by gulfing his head given due indication as directed, then all other members went therein and Nagendra Pd. P.W. 12 And S.S. Kishore (not examined) caught both hand of the appellant and made allegation of taking bribe of Rs.1,000/- which was initially denied and notes were shown to him to which he could not reply and at his instruction this witness took out money from the left pocket of shirt of the appellant, currency numbers tallies with the list and the appellant in the same position taken out and brought to C.B.I. Office where recovered amount was kept in an envelop. He proved his signature as Ext. 5/7. Both the hands of the appellant was washed in the mixture of sodium carbonate converted into Pink and also sealed where he signed and marked as Ext. 5/8. Thereafter pocket of shirt of the appellant was also washed and the same was sealed and signed and marked as Ext. 9 and the shirt was sealed under the signature marked as Ext. 5/10 also and the sodium carbonate etc. was also kept under seal. He put his signature marked as Ext. 5/11 and from the pocket of the appellant Rs. 840/- and Rs.300/- were also recovered which was sealed separately whereon his signature is marked as Exts. 5/12 and 5/13. Everything which was recovered after search a recovery memorandum was prepared in four pages, and on all such pages he put his signatures and marked as Exts. 5/14 to 5/17. After
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
10
stating all such things in detail this witness with regard to allegation against the appellant said “ ABHIYUKT KO AABHI NAHI PAHCHANTA HUI” . Thus, there is total denial of identification of the appellant during trial in court. Thereafter in cross-examination he has said about the time consumed during different processes. In para-11 he states that office of the appellant was in the first floor of the building and adjacent to same at the same floor there was chamber of S.D.O. Telephone or not he was not in a position to say. Further he expressed his inability to say about conversation between the appellant and the complainant (Not examined). He further denied suggestions that it was complainant who came out and signal and it was he who forcibly put money in the pocket of the appellant inspite of his protest during which process his hands were also came in touch with such currency and the appellant was forcibly taken out from the chamber to C.B.I. office in the midst of his colleagues. He was dragged at the instance of Uma Shankar Sharma, P.W.8 since the appellant did not oblige him.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
11
prosecution. But gives jolt to the entire trapping and apprehension etc. of the appellant from his chamber at first floor, who, as stated earlier has not been identified by P.W. 5.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
12
made when this witness and the complainant requested the appellant to expedite and provide early connection, but even on recall this witness has not said a word about his presence at the time of conversation. In absence whereof receiving any information from the complainant (still alive but not examined) is not admissible. He further admits that the complainant may be available at his ancestoral house, address of which he is personally known to him, but inspite of such statement in the examination-in-chief itself the complainant was withheld. This witness had denied suggestion of false implication of the appellant at his instance only because he was not ready to shift and provide telephone connection at the place other than applied for.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
13
as decided earlier and thereafter the appellant was apprehended and money was taken by P.W.5, but during entire examination-in-chief, perhaps owing to the denial by P.W.5 to identify the appellant, no attempt was made to get the appellant identified by this witness also in court during trial. This itself creates much cloud against the prosecution case since two independent persons stating everything, but they either did not identify the appellant or the prosecution did not dare to put such question to them. In cross-examination this witness has said that when the appellant has already sent a person to provide connection what is requirement of taking money and at the same time he denied suggestion that the appellant did not demand money rather he protested keeping the same in his pocket and further he denied suggestion that when the appellant was apprehended he raised alarm and his colleague came in his rescue then the raiding party fled away with him. This witness has further denied his participation in trapping and giving and taking money etc.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
14
Inspector of C.B.I. proved F.I.R. Ext.10 and thereafter stated the entire process of trapping, instruction including demonstration etc. at his instance during which Ext. 6 and 7 were also proved. He further said about entering into the chamber of the appellant only after receiving signal from P.W.10 and apprehending him, money was recovered by P.W.5 on relevant papers. He proved his signature as well of the complainant as Exts. 5/56 to 5/93 and further submitted charge sheet. He is the only person as member of the raiding party to identify the appellant in court during trial. In cross-examination denied suggestion of preparation of pretrapping memorandum etc. after apprehending the appellant and also denied that the appellant had already instructed the mechanic at 10.30 A.M. to do the needful with regard to telephone connection. Further he denied that the appellant was crying about not demanding any amount as bribe rather said normal conversation was being heard from out side, whereas P.W.5 an independent witness was not in a position to hear anything. This witness has further denied that the money was forcibly put in the pocket of the appellant inspite of his resistance and that is why when protest was made by his colleagues no seizure etc. was prepared there and since the complainant is not inclined to support the wrong complaint inspite of having full knowledge of his address etc. he has not been produced.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
15
accompanying the complainant arrived at the chamber of the appellant and verified the allegations. In his presence there was also some conversation, but in court he has said nothing about the same, thus due to lack of any such material especially on the point of verification of allegations in absence of complainant, it was not possible for the raiding team to arrive at the appellant on particular place and time. It was to be done only on verification and report of the verifier. In absence of both there is absolutely nothing to fix the time according to which entire exercise of trapping of the appellant was to be planned and acted upon. But there is no explanation at all from the prosecution side for non examination of the
complainant.
“17. Persons authorized to investigate- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police Officer below the rank,-
(a)in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b)in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
©elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank,
Shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant :
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorized by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant :
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall not be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
16
investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.”
“……………..Authorization by a Superintendent of Police in favour of an officer so as to enable him to carry out investigation in terms of Section 17 of the Act is a statutory one. The power to grant such sanction has been conferred upon the authorities not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police. The proviso uses a negative expression. It also used the expression “shall”. Ex facie it is mandatory in character………..”
In paragraph16it is further said …………..when a statutory functionary passes an order, that too authorizing a person to carry out a public function like investigation into an offence, an order in writing was required to be passed. A statutory functionary must act in a manner laid down in the statute. Issuance of an oral direction is not contemplated under the Act. Such a concept is unknown in administrative law. The statutory functionaries are enjoined with a duty to pass written orders.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
17
which reads as such:-
“ 20. Presumption where public servant 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) of sub. Section (1) of Section 13 it 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 the 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.
(2)Whether in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused persons, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give 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.
(3)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub. Section (1) and (2), the court may declined to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub.sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.”
Now it is for the appellant to rebut the presumption created by law against him. Contra, it is the case of the appellant that at no point of time any such money was demanded or accepted, rather thrushed in his pocket.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
18
being apprehended with tainted money by accepting amount received from the complainant had taken a plea of payment in lieu of some other cause. And the Apex Court as regard to P.C. Act, 1947 in the case of “T. Subramanian Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu” reported in AIR 2006 SC 836 in Para-7 has held as
follows:-
“Mere receipt of Rs.200/- by the appellant from P.W.1 on 10.7.1987 (admitted by the appellant) will not be sufficient to fasten guilt under section 5 (1) (a) or Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. If the amount had been paid as lease rent arrears due to the temple or even if it was not so paid, but the accused was made to believe that the payment was towards lease rent due to the temple, he cannot be said to have committed any offence. If the reason for receiving the amount is explained and the explanation is probable and reasonable, then the appellant had to be acquitted, as rightly done by the Special Court. In Punjabrao Vs. State of Maharashtra (2002 (10) SCC 371).”
Delhi” reported in (1975) 4 SCC 761 in Paragraph-14 has held as follows:-
“It is true that in law the incapacity of the government servant to show any favour or render any service in connection with his official duties does not necessarily take the case out of the mischief of these penal provisions. Nevertheless, it is an important factor bearing on the question as to whether the accused had received the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official functions. This question as to whether the government servant receiving the money had the requisite incriminative motive is one of the fact”
as follows:-
“Demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence under the Act. Mere recovery of currency notes itself does not constitute the offence under the Act unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
19
another case of “ Narendra Champaklal Trivedi and Harjibhai devjibhai Chauhan Vs. State of Gujrat” reported in 2012 AIR SC (Criminal) 1006=AIR 2012 SC 2263, wherein in paragraph 12 it is held as follows:-
“At the outset, we may state that the recovery part has gone totally unchal-lenged. Though a feeble attempt was made before the High Court and also before us, yet a perusal of the evidence and the test carried out go a long way to show that the amount was recovered from the possession of the accused- appellants. It is settled principle of law that merely recovery of the tainted money is not sufficient to record a conviction unless there is evidence that bribe had been demanded or money was paid voluntarily as a bribe. Thus, the only issue that remains to be addressed is whether there was demand of bribe and acceptance of the same. Be it noted, in the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, recovery would not alone be a ground to convict the accused. This has been so stated in T. Subramanian Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
20
where other formalities could be done. This is an admitted case of the prosecution that after recovery of the tainted money from the pocket of the appellant his both the hands were under the control of two of member of the raiding parties and in this condition he had been taken to C.B.I. Office where washing of hands of the appellant, seizure and recovery memo etc. were prepared, but neither from any documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution nor from the testimony of any witness it came to show what prevented them to complete all legal requirements at the place where such recovery of tainted money was made. Even during cross-examination this question was put to them but none of the witnesses including P.W.12 made any reply to it. As per normal rule all such legal requirement had to be completed promptly at the place where recovery etc. was made.
“………………..In that event where seizure mahazar is prepared at later stage officer should indicate its reasons as to why it has not been prepared mahazor at the spot of recovery and to have fair procedure in respect of search and seizure. It is always desirable to prepare seizure Mahazar at the spot itself.”
But as stated, no explanation is offered which gives room to submit that entire prosecution version is not free from doubt.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
21
already been installed on the date of occurrence itself. Prosecution has said a word about exact timing of such installation, whereas, P.W. 10 in para-7 has said that during conversation at the relevant time between complainant (not examined) and the appellant (not identified during trial) on the request of early installation of the connection the appellant‟s response was that he had already instructed the competent person to do so.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.297 of 2002 dt.19-08-2013
22
reasonable doubts then and then only the accused may be held guilty and subjected to punishment. But apart from others, by withholding the competent witness, i.e. complainant, without offering any explanation has not discharged its duty.
(Akhilesh Chandra, J)
Abhay/-
3 issues framed by the court
Was demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification proved beyond reasonable doubt despite recovery of tainted money?
Was the prosecution sanction granted by a competent authority under Section 19?
Did the investigation comply with Section 17 without written authorization from the Superintendent of Police?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.I.R. 1974 SC 1024Referred¶50
2009 (15) SCC 72Referred¶50
Ram Dayal Ram Vs. The State of BiharRelied on¶99
1981 PLJR 221
State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam Vs. Surya Sankaram KarriRelied on¶100
(2006) 7 SCC 172 · Who else cites this
AIR 1974 SC 226Distinguished¶111
1976 SC 1497Distinguished¶111
2004 AIR S.C. 966Distinguished¶111
T. Subramanian Vs. The State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶114
AIR 2006 SC 836 · Who else cites this
Trilok Chand Jain Vs. State of DelhiRelied on¶118
(1975) 4 SCC 761 · Who else cites this
2011 AIR SCW 297Relied on¶120
Narendra Champaklal Trivedi and Harjibhai devjibhai Chauhan Vs. State of GujratRelied on¶126
2012 AIR SC (Criminal) 1006=AIR 2012 SC 2263 · Who else cites this
Khed Singh Vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶133
2002 (4) SCC 380 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajeshwar Yadav
State Of Bihar
The Union of India, through C.B.I. Patna
Akhilesh Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
