news details |
|
|
| HC dismiss appeal of Vigilance Organziation, uphold acquittal in trap case | | |
early times report
Jammu, July 16: Justice Rajesh Sekhri of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the judgemnet of acquittal in trap case passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Anti-Corruption), Jammu, vide which Parveen Sharma then head clerk DIC Jammu came to be acquitted of the charge, for offence under Section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 1949 ("the PC Act"), read with Section 161 of Ranbir Penal Code.
As factual narration would unfurl, One Sham Singh lodged a written complaint before the SSP, Vigilance Organisation Jammu (VOJ), stating inter alia that he had applied for the registration of an SSI Unit namely "SHABNAM INDUSTRIES" at Chak Majra, Tehsil Bishnah, Jammu, with the District Industries Centre, (DIC), Jammu, and his file was lying with the Head Clerk, Parveen Sharma (the respondent) for issuance of the Registration Certificate. It was alleged by the complainant that respondent demanded Rs. 5,000/- bribe for processing the file, by 07.05.2009. The complainant approached VOJ for action and FIR No. 25/2009 for aforesaid offences came to be registered against the respondent.
Justice Rajesh Sekhri after hearing Sr. AAG Monika Kohli for the UT whereas Sr. Adv Abhinav Sharma for the respondent, observed that the nature of offence, the prosecution was obliged to show that respondent demanded the bribe and received it for processing complainant's file and issuance of the registration certificate. According to the complainant PW Sham Singh, it was Ramesh Kumari who had to process his case and she demanded the bribe amount for the said purpose. The trap laying Officer PW Khalil Ahmad Poswal has also admitted that when he examined the registration file of the complainant, he did not find any noting of the respondent on the said date. Once respondent was not required to perform any official act regarding registration of the complainant's unit or issuance of registration certificate, it is rightly observed by learned trial Court that there was no question of the complainant to approach the respondent and for the respondent to demand the bribe.
Having regard to what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, the prosecution, in the present case, has failed to prove, by credible and clinching evidence, the prior demand of illegal gratification and voluntary acceptance thereof by the respondent as a matter of fact.
With these observations, the High Court said that there is no merit in the present appeal, hence it is dismissed. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
