Decided on September 23,1999

SAKHI MOHD Appellant
STATE OF JANDK Respondents


ARUN KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu. By means of impugned judgment passed in File No. 10/Challan, on 22 -09 -1993 after holding both the appellants guilty under Sections 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 (SVI) and Section 161 Ranbir Penal Code, both of them have been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2000/ - each under Section 5(2) and in default of payment of this fine they have been further directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months; and two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 161 Ranbir Penal Code as also to pay a fine of Rs 2000/ - and in default of payment of this fine they have been further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment six months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. By means of this appeal both the appellants have questioned this judgment.
(2.) SHRI Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that in order to sustain its plea prosecution was required to first show that there was demand of bribe by the appellants, then its acceptance as well as the recovery of the tainted money of bribe from the appellants. In the absence of all these three ingredients or any one of those prosecution must fail. In addition to this it was also urged that when a reference is made to the statements of the complainant, two independent witnesses of trap and the police officials who were members of the raiding party they do not corroborate each other on material aspects of the case besides giving separate versions, benefit whereof according to Shri Bakshi has to be extended to his clients. Another argument addressed was that evidence of the complainant needs to be corroborated on material facts by other trust worthy and reliable evidence and at the same time by not examining the Investigating Officer material prejudice has been caused to the appellants because they were deprived of an opportunity to cross -examine him on material aspects of the case. Not only this, but even Prem Pal Gupta Inspector of police had not been examined. Lastly it was urged that this is a case of no legal evidence which can translate against the appellants. Thus the appeal was liable to be allowed and conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants set aside.
(3.) WITH the assistance of learned counsel for the parties the case has been examined by the court in the light of the facts as they exist on the file as well as on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary. Facts giving rise to this case are that FIR No. 128 / 88 under Section 447 & 379 Ranbir penal Code was registered at the instance of one Vishwa Mittar son of Shri Preetam Dass against Ayodya Nath son of Badri Dass (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) at police station Nowshera. In this case grievance against the complainant made by Vishwa Mittar was that he is in cultivating possession of Khasra No. 387 measuring 20 Kanals. On 29.10.1988 complainant with his two sons cut grass from an area of about 5 Kanals out of this khasra No. 387. When Vishwa Mittar questioned them, all the three threatened the former that they would cause loss of his person and property and in case if the former ever talked about this in future he would be done to death.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.