DEV DARSHAN SUD
P. R. Rajpal – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dev Darshan Sud, J.— The appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 7 and 13(a)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Bereft of all details, the prosecution case is that the accused, who was working as Chief Engineer, NHPC Baira Siul Project, Surangani, District Chamba, H.P. had demanded bribe of Rs.20,000 from complainant Shri Kamal Kishore (PW10), who was working as Government Contractor, for clearing his outstanding bills. Complainant lodged as FIR, Ex. PW I2A with PW13 Dy. Superintendent of Police Paras Ram, who set a trap and apprehended the appellant/accused red handed purportedly accepting the bribe of Rs. 10, 000 from the complainant in order to facilitate the payment of his bills. The prosecution case of course proceeded with the fact that the currency was treated with phenolphthalein powder and the said currency was seized from the accused and hand wash etc., turned pink. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. The learned Special Judge, on conclusion of the trial holds that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was per se sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act aforesaid
Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others
Budh Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Om Prakash v. State of Haryana
T. Subramanian v. State of T.N.
V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.
M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of Kerala and Another
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala
Surajmal v. State (Delhi Admn.)
M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.