news details |
|
|
| Court acquits AEE in trap case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Jan 9: Additional Sessions Judge Anticorruption Udhampur Dinesh Gupta acquitted one Sanjay Kumar Gupta AEE PDD who was demanding an amount of Rs. 20000/- as illegal gratification for giving the Shutdown of the electricity supply for cutting the trees standing on both the sides of Dhar road and later VOJ on January 1, 2017 laid a trap.
Court after hearing both the sides observed that 33. In the instant case, prosecution cited PW Vikram Singh as Shadow witness. PW Vikram Singh when appear as witness before this Court stated that on 31-01-2017 the complainant had taken him to the house of accused. As soon as they entered the room, accused was standing in between him and complainant. That place was very tight and narrow. Complainant gave something to accused, as the result of which he felt that their mission was over. He has no knowledge that what discussion were made between complainant and accused in those 2-3 minutes because he had not heard anything. In his presence, accused neither demanded bribe from complainant, nor accept the same. The recovery of money was made in the house of accused and the proceeding of handwash and other post trap proceeding were made in the Dak Bangalow Udhampur. PW Vikram Singh further stated that he signaled the team standing near the door and team came inside. In the mean time the wife of the accused reached there and she astonished to see the Vigilance team. After that on the saying of DSP vigilance one person had taken out the money from the pocket of the pant of the accused. This witness did not deposed that he had prepared the slip containing the serial numbers of the treated currency notes, which as per the prosecution story was prepared by both the Independent witnesses, so preparation of slip containing Serial number of treated currency notes become doubtful.
In view of the observation made herein before, Court is not convinced that the prosecution has been able to remove the element of doubt from its accusations against the accused as well as the charge framed by this court, by such strong evidence as could lead to one and only one hypothesis pointing to the guilt of the accused. And the prosecution chain of circumstances is not established by such an evidence as may make it complete and so strong that none of the chains/links is shaken or weakened by any reasonable doubt. So, the accused is acquitted of the charge for the offences under sections 5(1) (d) r/w 5 (2) P.C. Act 2006 and 4-A J&K P.C. (Amendment) Act 2014, framed by this court. This challan is dismissed. Personal and surety bonds furnished shall stand discharged under rule.
—(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
