Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S. THAKUR, CJI., V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Krishan Chander – Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.703 of 2015)
Decided on : 06-01-2016
(2014) 13 SCC 55 ; (2009) 6 SCC 587 ; (2015) 10 SCC 152 ; AIR 1976 SC 294 ; (2015) 9 SCC 588 ; (2014) 13 SCC 143 – Relied.
Facts of Case:
Trial court convicted appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. High Court has dismissed appeal filed by appellant and upheld order of conviction and sentence passed against appellant by court of Special Judge, Delhi.
Findings of Court:
Approach of both trial court and High Court is erroneous as both courts have relied upon evidence of prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from complainant by appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for charges framed against him. Prosecution has failed to prove e factum of demand of bribe money made by appellant from complainant which is sine qua non for convicting him for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act.
Result – Appeal allowed.
Judgment :
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
Leave granted.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 7.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. Appeal No. 634 of 2008 wherein the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the court of Special Judge, Delhi (for short the “trial court”) in CC No. 21 of 2005. The trial court convicted the appellant vide its judgment dated 14.7.2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the PC Act”) and vide order dated 15.7.2008 sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/-for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. For the offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences imposed upon him for the above said offences were to run concurrently.
3. Brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties:-
4. The prosecution case before the trial court was that on 29.7.2004, an FIR No. 662 of 2004 was registered at Police Station, Nangloi, Delhi under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) against one Krishan Kumar (PW-9), the brother of the complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2). Krishan Kumar was arrested on 29.7.2004 in connection with the alleged offences referred to in the above said FIR.
5. The complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2) had approached Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Ranbir Singh (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of the said case for release of Krishan Kumar on bail. The Investigating Officer is stated to have accepted the bail bond for release of Krishan Kumar and directed the appellant (a constable at the said Police Station) to release him on bail in connection with the alleged offences referred to supra.
6. The appellant alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs.5000/-from the complainant-Jai Bhagwan for releasing his brother Krishan Kumar on bail. It is alleged that under duress, complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2) paid Rs.4,000/-as bribe to the appellant. Thereafter, Krishan Kumar (PW-9) was released on bail and the appellant asked the complainant-Jai Bhagwan to pay him the balance amount of Rs.1,000/-on 30.7.2004 between 6.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m. at Ditchau Kalan Bus Stand, Najafgarh.
7. The complainant-Jai Bhagwan (PW-2) approached the office of Anti Corruption Branch on 30.07.2004 and made a written complaint regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant from him. The said written complaint was recorded by Sunder Dev (PW-12) in presence of Anoop Kumar Verma (PW-6).
8. The complainant-Jai Bhagwan took with him two Government Currency notes (for short the “GC notes”) in the denomination of Rs.500/-each and handed over the same to Inspector Sunder Dev (PW-12) who noted down the serial numbers of the said GC notes. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to the said GC notes and recorded in the pre-raid proceedings and its effect was demonstrated. The tainted GC notes were given to the complainant-Jai Bhagwan, who kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt.
9. As per the instructions, panch witness-Anoop Kumar Verma (PW-6) was directed to remain close to complainant-Jai Bhagwan to overhear the conversation between the complainant-Jai Bhagwan and the appellant. He was further instructed to give a signal to the raiding party by hurling his hand over his head when bribe amount had actually been given by the complainant-Jai Bhagwan.
10. On 30.07.2004, at around 4.30 p.m., the complainant-Jai Bhagwan, panch witness-Anoop Kumar Verma, Inspector Sunder Dev (PW-12), Sub-Inspector B.S. Yadav (PW-10) and Constabl
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.
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
