news details |
|
|
| HC uphold acquittal of Asst Profession in Trap case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Feb 7: Justice Rajnesh Oswal of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court upheld the acquittal judgment of the Special Judge Anticorruption Jammu whereby Ashu Jolly was acquitted in trap case.
According to the VOJ (Now ACB) that "A complaint came to be lodged in the Vigilance Organization Jammu by the complainant that she was a student of IGNOU M.Ed. course and had submitted her synopsis four times but every time her synopsis was rejected. Her previous guide was Mohd. Zubair Kales but she got her guide changed. However, the present guide Ashu Jolly, assistant professor Govt. College of Education, Canal Road, Jammu had demanded an amount of Rs 10,000/- as bribe for clearing her synopsis and under the compelling circumstances she is going to pay Rs 5000/- to her guide, as the first instalment, as such appropriate legal action may be taken. Acting swiftly, a formal case (FIR 25/2016) was registered at Police Station VOJ for investigation and after competing all the required legal formalities, the team of Vigilance laid a trap and caught the accused professor red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant/student in her office,.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal after hearing Sr. AAG Monika Kohli for the ACB whereas Sr. Advocate Abhinav Sharma with Adv Abhirash Sharma for the respondent, observed that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is gravamen of an offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) and 4-A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and in absence of the same, the charge therefor would obliviously fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, without proof of the demand would not be sufficient to bring home the charge against the respondent. This court has examined the judgment passed by the trial court and finds that the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the statements of few witnesses and even if this court remands the matter back to the learned trial court on that ground, it would be of no consequence as the prosecution case has various inconsistencies, infirmities and material contradictions and in such circumstances the acquittal of the respondent cannot be reversed. Learned trial court has already noted the infirmities as pointed out by this court hereinabove and the opinion formed by the learned trial court while acquitting the respondent can neither be termed as perverse nor impossible, as such, this Court does not find any reason to show indulgence, Court said.
With these observations, Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Anticorruption Bureau.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
