The High Court also accepted the defence version made under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and recorded the findings that the possibility of Phenolphthalein powder appearing on the hands of the Respondent-accused when he shook hands with the complainant cannot be ruled out. The High Court further took note of various subsequent developments that certain complaints were filed against him by the CBI having disproportionate assets. The complainant Naresh Kumar Kapoor was a man having a criminal background. He was involved in a murder case as well as in a case of sale of shares in bogus names. The High Court further observed that in case two views are possible, the view favouring the accused has to be given preference, thus gave the benefit of doubt to the Respondent accused and acquitted him.{Para 9}
10. Undoubtedly, the reasoning given by the High Court does not deserve to be accepted for the reason that even if the complainant had a criminal background, he can still be forced by the officer of the Income Tax Department to pay illegal gratification for not reopening the assessment of a particular year. The subsequent cases against the Respondent-accused for having disproportionate assets cannot be co-related with the incident of trap case. The incident in which the Respondent had been arrested for taking illegal gratification has to be examined on its own merit.
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.
Read full judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment