news details |
|
|
| HC upheld acquittal of Manager JKPCC in trap case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 19: Justicer Rajesh Sekhri of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court whereby the Trial Court acquitted Masood Ahmad Gangoo in trap case.
The prosecution case in the trial court is that on 02-08-2005, one Sheikh Shafaat Ahmad lodged a written complaint with the State Vigilance Organization (now ACB) stating inter alia that respondent, who happened to be Manager JKPCC, Tulmulla made an allotment in his favor for the construction of bathrooms and various renovation works of Kheer Bhawani temple on the eve of Kheer Bhawani Mela and after the execution of work, payment was released in his favour. However, it was alleged that respondent demanded an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as commission for the work executed by the complainant as also for allotment of fresh work in his favor. However, after persuasion, the gratification amount was settled at Rs. 14,000/-. On the receipt of this complaint, the Vigilance Organization swung into action, the aforesaid FIR came to be registered, and a trap was laid to nab the respondent and after completion of Investigation challan was presented which turned into acquittal. Against the acquittal, present appeal was filed.
Justice Rjesh Sekhri after hearing both the sides observed that mere demand of illegal gratification by a public servant or mere acceptance of bribe by a public servant is not by itself sufficient to constitute an offence under the PC Act. In all cases of bribery, prosecution is obliged to keep two material aspects in mind viz; (i) there is demand and, (ii) there is acceptance, in the sense that accused has obtained illegal gratification as a public servant by indulgence in corrupt practices and abuse of official position. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute an offence under the PC Act. The other aspect to be borne in mind is that if an accused come forward with a plea that the tainted money was kept with him without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was voluntarily, or consciously accepted by him or it was with the tacit approval of the accused that money was kept with him as an illegal gratification. The presumption of innocence of the respondent in the present case is strengthened by the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. The High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction can interfere only in exceptional cases where it is found that the order of acquittal recorded by trial court is perverse or erroneous. The presumption of guilt of the respondent in the present case is not proved as prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the provisions of Section 5(2) of PC Act read with Section 161 RPC. The trial court has come to the right conclusion on facts and evidence on record holding the respondent innocent of the charge. The findings recorded by the trial court are lucid and I do not find any reason to interfere. Hence, the present appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed and the impugned judgment is upheld. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
