Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.
Halida Khatun - Appellant
Versus
State through CBI, Oakland – Respondent
CRL. APPEAL NO. 5 (SH) 2010
Decided On : 30.05.2014
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under Section 12 - 201 IPC - [Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 201, 120B, 420, 468, 471] - The court convicted the accused under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 201 IPC. The accused attempted to bribe a court official to obtain documents related to a case she was involved in. The court found the prosecution successfully proved the charges and upheld the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a lawyer, attempted to bribe a court official to obtain documents related to a case she was involved in. The court found her guilty of offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution successfully proved the charges of bribery and causing disappearance of documents against the accused. The court upheld the conviction and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Issues: The issues involved the accused's attempt to bribe a court official and obtain documents related to her case, as well as the prosecution's evidence and the legality of the trap laid by the CBI.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution successfully proved the charges against the accused, and minor infirmities in the investigation were not sufficient to reject the prosecution's case. The court also reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed regarding the conviction, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, without interfering with the fine. The lower court record was to be sent back along with a copy of the judgment for information and necessary action.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2010/13.05.2010 passed by the Special Judge(CBI), Shillong in Special Case(CBI) NO.10 of 2002 whereby said Court has convicted the accused/appellant Ms. Halida Khatun under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced her to imprisonment for a period of 5(five) years and directed to pay fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand) in default of payment of which she is required to undergo imprisonment for another one year. She has been further convicted under Section 201 IPC, and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and directed to pay fine under Section 201 IPC read with 120B, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower Court record.
3. Briefly stated prosecution story is that Ms. Halida Khatun ( accused/appellant ) was a Supreme Court lawyer who was facing trial in RC Case No.21A of 1996 ( relating to forged bills of fee ) in Special Court(CBI), Shillong. On 20.02.2002, she contacted Shri Sarjeet Singh (PW 7) of Court Naib of CBI and offered him better job and monitory benefits if he agreed to hand over her original documents of RC Case No. 21A of 1996 so that she could destroy the same to save herself from the clutches of law. PW7 Shri Sarjeet Singh did not respond and simply complained orally to the Superintendent of Police, CBI and Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI Shri Tonmoy Behera (PW 8). Thereafter, the accused/appellant Ms. Halida Khatun again made an attempt in this connection and offered to pay Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) on which PW 7 Sri Sarjeet Singh gave a written complaint to his superior officers which was registered by the CBI, whereafter a trap was laid by CBI. Ms. Halida Khatun had to appear on 24.04.2002 before the Special Court(CBI), Shillong in RC Case No.21A of 1996, and she reached Shillong on 21.04.2002 alongwith her brother Sri Abdul Sattar. On 22.04.2002 she contacted PW7 Sri Sarjeet Singh in the matter promising bribe for the original documents relating to RC Case No.21A of 1996. On 23.04.2002 at 9.30 A.M. written complaint from Sarjeet Singh was registered and a trap team consisting PW8 Sri T. Behera, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI including independent witnesses Sri J. S. Marbaniang(PW 3), Sri Mrinal Sharma(PW 4) and the lady constables was constituted in order to apprehend the accused red handed. A preliminary memorandum of list of the documents(Ext.5) asked for by the accused was prepared and the trap team proceeded to NEC guest House where the accused was staying with her brother. PW 7 Sarjeet Singh was instructed to scratch his head as a signal to the team when the accused would hand over him money. After reaching NEC Guest House, Shillong, on 23.04.2002 at 11.45 A.M. the members of the trap team hided themselves in the guest house and allowed PW 7 Sarjeet Singh to meet accused Ms. Halida Khatun. When PW 7 Sarjeet Singh reached in the room at second floor of the guest house, accused Halida Khatun asked him if all the documents have been brought. PW 7 Sarjeet Singh gave affirmative reply as per trap plan and told her that the original documents are lying in Vehicle No. ML05 6161 parked infront of the NEC guest House. Thereafter, they came down at 11.55 A.M. along with Sri Abdul Sattar ( brother of the accused with whom she was staying ). Accused Halida Khatun and her brother Abdul Sattar took out the bags containing the documents from the dickey of the car and took the same to her room ( in the second floor of the guest house ) and she randomly verified the documents. Thereafter, she offered Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to PW 7 Sarjeet Singh on which Sarjeet Singh gave the signal as per the plan by scratching his head to the hiding members of the trap team. The trap team led by Sri Tonmoy Behera ( PW 8 ), Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI entered in the room and immediately seized one lakh r
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
