news details |
|
|
| HC sets-aside conviction of Patwari in trap case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Sept 8: High Court has set aside the conviction of a Revenue official in a trap case.
Justice Mohammad Akram Chowdhary set-aside the conviction of Patwari Ghulam Mohammad Kumar who was awarded 2-year imprisonment by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge Baramulla (Special Judge Anticorruption Baramulla / Bandipora / Kupwara).
The appellant argued herein that one Khursheed Ahmad Lone had made a complaint against him for demanding bribe of Rs 2500/- from him for making necessary entries in the revenue record, while being posted as Patwari Bomai Sopore, which complaint culminated into registration of FIR No.39/2006 P/S VOK. That after completion of the investigation by the respondent-VOK, charge sheet came to be presented before the competent court of law; and after facing trial for long 13 years, the appellant has been convicted by the trial court and has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and fine of RS 10,000/- for the commission of each of the offences punishable under Sections 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 RPC.
Justice Mohammad Akram Chowdhary after hearing both the sides observed that it is well settled that in absence of the evidence regarding demand of bribe, the appellant-accused cannot be held guilty on the basis of the evidence, unworthy of acceptance. After going through the entire evidence, I am of the view that there is no acceptable evidence to prove demand and acceptance of the bribe money within the meaning of Section 161 RPC. Under these circumstances, the findings of the trial court that the prosecution has established the charge of demand and acceptance of bribe with ultimate recovery of tainted money from the accused-appellant, cannot be accepted and agreed. Thus, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the essential ingredients of demand of illegal gratification, made by the accused-appellant, from the complainant for doing an official act. Though a vain attempt seems to have been made by the prosecution to bring the factum of demand relying upon these witnesses, but their evidence does not support the complainant in material particulars to bring home, beyond reasonable doubt that a demand of Rs 2500/- as bribe was made by the accused-appellant for doing an official work while acting as a public servant.
The court further observed that having regard to the aforesaid factual background and the law laid down on the subject, it is held that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence properly and thus reached a wrong conclusion to hold appellant/accused guilty of the offences of which he was charged. As a sequel to the afore-stated discussion, the conviction recorded against the appellant-accused would necessarily have to be set aside. With these observations, High Court allowed the petition set-aside the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
