news details |
|
|
| Yudhvir acquitted after 8 years trial in trap case | | | JAMMU, March 29
Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu JR Kotwal acquitted Yudhvir Singh, the then Senior Assistant in the Office of Superintendent GMC Hospital Jammu, who was caught red-handed on August 11, 1999 by the Vigilance Organization team, while accepting Rs 1000 from the complainant, as illegal gratification for releasing the salary of two months of the complainant.
In the 29 pages judgment JR Kotwal, after hearing Advocate SC Bali appearing for the accused and CPO for the State, and referred various judgments of the Supreme Court, observed that contrary to the initial version and the prosecution case, the complainant stated in his evidence before the court that the Principal GMC Jammu had suspended him, as he was found playing Holi on the March 3, 1999 and attached him in the office of Medical Superintendent and was reinstated on April 16, 1999. In the intervening period, according to him, the accused had demanded money for release of the salary and a deal was settled at Rs.1000. In the result at that point of time having received salary for four months, he did not pay him agreed Rs 1000 and protested and agreed to pay him Rs 1000 the next day, when he lodged the report.
Court observed that laying of trap is good; it conveys a tangible signal of state’s resolve in its fight against corruption in public life. About all it is a legally recognized method of collecting evidence in corruption cases as the bribe is generally demanded and accepted in secrecy. Nevertheless, it is painful and its consequences are agonizing may be for one or few only. Therefore, the investigating agency should not be contented with laying of the trap only and catching the culprit but it calls, red-handed and should not ignore appropriate follow up action. A fruitful result of a trap can uphold and vindicate the credibility of the trap. Otherwise, the victim of the trap would nourish the well-founded or self-propounded belief of innocence and victimization with reference to this case, the investigation before laying trap, ought to have satisfied itself about the motive of illegal gratification alleged by the complainant and in any case should have ascertained it after the trap and before sending the accused for trial, from assessment of the entire evidence on record irresistible conclusion is that the prosecution has succeeded in proving only that in the course of trap laid by the Vigilance Organization accused Yudhvir Singh had accepted the tinted money Rs 1000 from complainant Roshan Lal that in quick succession was recovered from the pocket of the pant which the accused was wearing. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that the acceptance of said money by the accused was in furtherance of a demand made by him, much less that the accused had demanded or accepted the same money as illegal gratification. Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, therefore, having not been proved and the charge against the accused fails and the accused is held not guilty and acquitted from the charges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
