//
you're reading...
legal issues

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) -Bribe giving – Registration and Investigation by ASI/SHO in part and later part by Dy. S.P. – not fatal to the prosecution – Giving Bribe to the complainant to do a favour in getting supply orders of Double Deck Beds to Hostels – Trial court acquitted the accused – High court convicted the accused – Apex court held that It is evident that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal. Nothing has been said from the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by reason of the investigation carried out. The High Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.we are fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012) Narinder Singh ………Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41791

Section 12  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) -Bribe giving – Registration and Investigation by ASI/SHO in part and later part by Dy. S.P. – not fatal to the prosecution –  Giving Bribe to the complainant to do a favour in getting supply orders of Double Deck Beds to Hostels – Trial court acquitted the accused – High court convicted the accused – Apex court held that It is  evident that PW-7 Prem Chand who  was  posted  as  ASI/IO  in  the  Bharmour  Police Station requested  the  SHO  at  Chamba  to  depute  a  gazette  officer  to investigate the matter.  Even if the part of investigation had been  carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal.   Nothing has  been  said  from the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused  by reason of the investigation carried out.  The  High  Court  rightly  pointed out  that  Bharmour  being  a  tribal  area,  there   is   a   single   line administration and lot of power is vested  with  the  Resident  Commissioner since the heads of various departments  or  competent  authorities  are  not available in Bharmour, and at that time the  ADM-complainant  was  also  the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.we  are fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against  the appellant.  The provisions of law considered by  the  High  Court  ought  to have been followed by the Trial Court.  The Trial Court decided  the  matter as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under  the  provisions of penal code.  The Trial Court  has  not  considered  the  gravity  of  the offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. =

 

Single Judge of the High Court setting aside the judgment and  order

of acquittal of the Trial Court convicted the  appellant-accused  guilty  of

the offence punishable under Section 12  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption

Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) and sentenced him  to  undergo  six  months

imprisonment.=

on  10.12.2002  at  11  AM  the

accused-appellant  attempted  to  give  a  bribe  of  Rs.10,000/-   to   the

complainant  –  the  then  Additional  District  Magistrate,  Bharmour   for

inducing him, a public servant, to exercise his influence  to  give  accused

supply orders for the supply of double-decker beds  by  corrupt  or  illegal

means.

Thereafter, complainant  called  police  officials  and  lodged  the

complaint.  List of currency notes  allegedly  given  by  the  accused  were

prepared  and  the  police  officials  recorded  the  statements  of   other

witnesses.

The accused was charged  with  having  committed  the  aforesaid

offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. =

Trail Court


According to the  Special

Judge Chamba, the case had been initially investigated by the then ASI  Prem

Chand- PW7 and the matter was not investigated by an authorized officer  and

there had been miscarriage of justice especially when the statement  of  the

complainant was recorded by more than one  investigating  officer  including

PW-9 Dr. D.K. Chaudhary, the then Dy. S.P.,Chamba.

The other  ground  which

weighed with the Trial Court was that there was no occasion for the  accused

to offer the bribe for  getting  the  supply  of  double-decker  bed  as  no

quotation had been invited by PW-8 and there was no correspondence  in  this

behalf.

Therefore, there was no motive to give the bribe.  The Trial  Court

also  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  defence  version  that  the  ADM

(complainant) was annoyed with the accused  was  a  plausible  and  reliable

version.

Lastly, the Trial Court held that the prosecution  has  failed  to

prove as to what conversation actually transpired between  the  accused  and

the complainant.

High court

On analyzing the entire evidence,  the  High  Court  recorded  a

conclusive finding about the guilt of the appellant/accused.

It is  evident

that PW-7 Prem Chand who  was  posted  as  ASI/IO  in  the  Bharmour  Police

Station requested  the  SHO  at  Chamba  to  depute  a  gazette  officer  to

investigate the matter. 

Even if the part of investigation had been  carried

out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal.  

Nothing has  been  said  from

the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused  by

reason of the investigation carried out.  

The  High  Court  rightly  pointed

out  that  Bharmour  being  a  tribal  area,  there   is   a   single   line

administration and lot of power is vested  with  the  Resident  Commissioner

since the heads of various departments  or  competent  authorities  are  not

available in Bharmour, and at that time the  ADM-complainant  was  also  the

Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.

Apex court held that

While taking note of the finding recorded by the High  Court,  we  are

fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against  the

appellant.  The provisions of law considered by  the  High  Court  ought  to

have been followed by the Trial Court.  The Trial Court decided  the  matter

as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under  the  provisions

of penal code.  The Trial Court  has  not  considered  the  gravity  of  the

offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

13.   In the facts and circumstances of the  case  and  seriousness  of  the

offence, we fully agree  with  the  view  taken  by  the  High  Court.   The

impugned judgment, therefore, needs no interference.  Hence this appeal  has

no merit and the same is dismissed.

2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41791

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,631,948 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,846 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com