Back
PARAMJEET SINGH
Kiran Chander Asri – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
No, this is not a case where the court relied solely on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution proved demand, acceptance, and recovery through direct ocular testimony from the complainant (PW4 Ranbir Singh), who detailed multiple demands for ₹2,000 as a bribe for approving the fish-pond auction and handing over the tainted notes, and the shadow witness (PW8 Inspector Hari Chand), who was deputed to overhear the conversation, witness the handover, and give the pre-arranged signal upon acceptance. (!) (!) (!) [23000567740016][23000567740018] (!)
This testimony was consistent and mutually corroborative, further supported by the Gazetted Officer (PW5 Ram Mehar), who partially corroborated pre- and post-trap proceedings, including verification of notes, recovery from the appellant's drawer (after he moved them from his pocket), memos (Ex. PD, PE, PF, PG, PH), and chemical tests (hand wash, shirt pocket wash, note wash turning pink with sodium carbonate). [23000567740003][23000567740012][23000567740016][23000567740018]
The FSL report (Ex. PR) confirmed phenolphthalein traces, and the presumption under Section 20 PC Act arose upon proving possession, which the appellant failed to rebut. [23000567740005][23000567740018][23000567740023][23000567740025][23000567740027] (!)
The court explicitly held that "the prosecution had proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe money beyond a reasonable doubt" based on these consistent testimonies, recovery, and FSL corroboration, rejecting defense claims. [Finding of the Court][23000567740016][23000567740019][23000567740029]
1. The appellant-accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') by learned Special Judge, Sonipat and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ` 1,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ` 2,000/- under Section 13 of the Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with the stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The accusations which led to the trial of the appellant are that complainant-Ranbir Singh (PW 4), was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Mundlana. The said Gram Panchayat passed resolution for auction of fish-ponds in the village and sent it for approval to the appellant who fixed the auction for 15.03.1995. On that day, the appellant did not go to the village himself but deputed the Panchayat Officer who auctioned only the land of Panchayat and refused to auction the fish-ponds as per direction of the appellant. Thereafter, the auction of the fish-ponds was fixed for 22.03.1995. The compl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
