Back
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Basant Kumar Bihani – Appellant
Versus
State Union Of India – Respondent
How to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act? What is the admissibility requirement for electronic evidence under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act? What are the circumstances under which electronic records can be admitted when the certificate under Section 65-B(4) is filed belatedly or by a third party?
Key Points: - Prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act (!) (!) . - Electronic evidence must be accompanied by a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act to be admissible; failure renders it inadmissible (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court/Constitution Bench guidance: certificate under 65-B(4) is mandatory for admissibility of electronic records; in some circumstances, courts may permit late production or require production via 311 CrPC but generally, certificate is essential for admissibility of electronic records in criminal trials (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - If electronic primary evidence is not filed with certificate, conviction cannot rely on that evidence; the court must ensure caution in reliance on electronic records (!) (!) (!) (!) - (!) . - In Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court clarified that absence of direct/compliant evidence of demand may still permit inferential proof under certain circumstances, but the sine qua non remains proof of demand and acceptance (!) (!) (!) . - The appellate court acquitted Basant Kumar Bihani due to failure to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt and inadmissibility of the electronic records; judgment sets aside conviction (!) (!) - (!) .
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the respondent-C.B.I.
2. The instant Appeal has been filed challenging the validity of the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), CBI Court No. 3, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 02 of 2011 titled State versus Basant Kumar Bihani, arising out of RC No. 0062010A002 under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Sri Murad Ali, husband of the complainant Noor Fatima, had died on 10.04.2004. On 20.07.2004 Noor Fatima had given a letter stating that she will apply for compassionate appointment of her elder daughter Khushboo as soon as she attains majority. On 02.12.2006 she gave another letter stating that though the elder daughter had attained majority, she did not want to accept compassionate appointment as she wanted to pursue higher studies and she requested that her elder daughter be given appointment after she completes higher studies. On 30.05.
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
