The case of the complainant was that on 1.6.1994 he went to the house of the Respondent-accused and after bargaining, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on the same day as part payment of the illegal gratification of Rs. 25,000/-. He immediately went alongwith Raj Kumar Sharma (PW. 3), the shadow witness to Harish Kumar (PW. 12), DCP and the plan for trap was prepared and the trap was laid. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2), the Executive Magistrate has categorically stated that he had been directed by the Deputy Commissioner in writing on 31.5.1994 to join the trap party on 1.6.1994. Therefore, it is evident that in case the complainant himself had gone to Harish Kumar (PW. 12) for having a trap on 1.6.1994, the question of receiving a direction from the Deputy Commissioner on 31.5.1994 could not arise. Gurlebleen Singh (PW. 2) is a witness only of recovery and not of accepting the bribe money. This statement alone made it evident that the prosecution has not disclosed the genesis of the case correctly.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2010
Decided On: 12.08.2013
State of Punjab Vs. Madan Mohan Lal Verma
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Author: B.S. Chauhan, J.
Citation: (2013) 14 SCC 153,2013 INSC 530,MANU/SC/0776/2013,AIR SC 3368.
Red full judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment