news details |
|
|
| Corruption allegedly committed 24 years ago | | HC allows appeal, passes strictures against | |
Jammu, November, 12
Justice YP Nargotra of J&K High Court Jammu wing allowed two appeals, filed by the then ASI and Police Constable, who were involved in corruption case about 24 years ago and passed strictures against the complainant and his witnesses and also set-aside the conviction awarded by the Trial Court passed on December 21, 2001 whereby the accused were convicted and sentenced to under go imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs 20,000 each.
The case of the prosecution was Mohammed Saleem r/o Mendhar lodged a complaint with the Additional Inspector General of Police Jammu on April 12, 1983 alleging there in that he had paid Rs 1500/- to appellants on the assurance that they will arrange recruitment in police for the complainant on October 22, 1982. The police after investigation registered FIR against appellant Pran Nath Koul the then ASI and Constables Mohammed Khaliq and Tasawar Hussain on November 20, 1983. After completion of the investigation, the Challan was presented in the Court. During the pendency of the trial, accused Mohammed Khaliq absconded, proceedings against him u/s 512 CrPC were initiated and the appellants Pran Nath Koul and Tasawar Hussain faced the Trial. Trial Court appreciating the evidence of the prosecution awarded sentence to both the appellants. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, appellants filed these appeals.
Justice Nargotra heard Advocates PN Raina, Sarfraz Hamid Rather and Anshuja Sharma appearing for the appellants and Additional Advocate General Mr. BS Salathia appearing for the state.
While allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction awarded by the Trial Court Justice Nargotra took serious note of the case and observed that criminal cases lodged against public servant on the allegations of his having demanded and accepted the money, as illegal gratification, generally arise out of two types of complaints first type of complaint being that of a complainant who on the demand of bribe by a public servant before actually paying the bribe amount to him goes to the police and lodges the
complaint disclosing the facts of such demand of the bribe and enables police to register FIR and during investigation arrange a trap and in the process apprehend the public servant red-handed immediately after acceptance of the bribe. In such case corpus delicti the bribe amount can also be recovered. While the other type of the complaint, the complainant who on demand being made, readily and willingly pays the bribe amount to the Public Servant for due or undue favour and only if he does not get the favour promised for, he lodged the complaint against such public servant and in such case no recovery of bribe amount comes to be made. Complainants in both the situation though enjoy the legal impunity from prosecution for the offence of giving bribe but cannot stand at the same pedestal, so far as their reliability and credibility of their evidence in the Court is concerned, because in the first case the assurance and necessary corroboration to is version can emanate from the fact recovery of bribe amount from the accused if proved but in the second case the version of the complainant cannot have any such assurance or corroboration. In the absence of recovery of the bribe amount his version ordinarily would deserve to be looked upon with suspicion and for reliability the Court shall have to look for strong corroboration from other trustworthy evidence from independent source for recording the conviction of public servant for having accepted the bribe. The conviction of a public servant on the basis of testimony of such a complainant even if supported by interested or his relation witnesses would be hazardous because in that case it would be very easy for an unscrupulous person to get an honest but un-obliging officer falsely implicated on allegation of corruption. A heavy duty is cost upon the Courts to protect an officer from being harassed at the hands of an unscrupulous person. With these observations the Court said that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution rightly and the evidence of the complainant and his two brothers could not be relied upon to hold the applicants guilty. In the considered opinion of the Court the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubt against the accused/appellants as such they are acquitted of the charges and the judgment passed by the Trial Court impugned in these appeals shall stand set-aside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
