RAKESH KAINTHLA
Ajit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
1. The respondent no. 2 informant made a complaint against respondent no. 3 before Dy. S.P. Vigilance Office, Solan stating that he is a Civil contractor with BSNL. Paramjeet Singh- respondent no. 3 demanded money for releasing the security of Rs. 1,40,000/-pertaining to Ayurvedic Dispensary, Barog. He was asking that the security would be released on the clearance of the previous transaction. The informant was undertaking the work of the CDPO building at Dharampur. Paramjeet was not permitting the informant to lay the slab. He was saying that permission could be granted only on the clearance of the previous transaction. Paramjeet demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- as a bribe. The informant had a recording of the demand made by Paramjeet; hence, he prayed that appropriate action be taken.
2. The police registered the FIR and set up a trap. Currency notes worth Rs. 1,00,000/- were treated with phenolphthalein powder and the informant was asked to signal the police on demand. Shadow witness was associated. Paramjeet was caught red-handed with the money. His hands were washed with the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned pink. The solution was sent to
Supriya Jain vs. State of Haryana
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander
Gulam Mustafa vs. State of Karnataka
Iqbal vs. State of U.P. (2023) 8 SCC 734 : 2023 SCC Online SC 949
Jamnalal Pande vs. State of M.P. 2010 CrLJ 538: 2009 SCC Online M.P. 546
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.