Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 110 - HC - Indian LawsDemand of Bribe - illegal gratification or not - Offences punishable under Section 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Learned Spl. PP for the CBI has vehemently contended that since the FSL revealed that the hand-wash, pant pocket wash and wash of the bed-sheet turned pink, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that the bribe amount was indeed accepted by the respondent and the said evidence in itself is sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent. HELD THAT:- V. Swaminathan the complainant deposed that the respondent was representing himself as one Mr. Sachdev and did not disclose his identity which he came to know when he attended the meeting of IMWG at Chennai in January 2009 to make out a case of initial demand. However, these facts were deposed by the complainant for the first time in his testimony before the Court only and thus the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the same being material improvements. Further, the testimony of V. Swaminathan, shadow witness and the TLO Insp. Rajesh Chahal does not establish specific demand of bribe by the respondent during the trap proceedings. The tape recorded conversations exhibited by the prosecution purportedly of the recording of the conversations at the time of trap does not reveal a demand of bribe. The investigating officer in his testimony before the Court admitted that the version in the purported transcript for demand of bribe was admittedly not there when the actual cassette was played in Court. Thus, there is no evidence to establish demand of bribe at the time of raid. Case of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that he was innocent and falsely implicated at the instance of Dr. Shyam Aggarwal, Chairman of IMWG who was known to Vineet Aggarwal S.P. CBI and in conspiracy with the complainant, this corruption case was foisted on the respondent. The respondent had strongly objected to conducting of confidential IMWG Meeting in Chennai in the presence of complainant whose 5 applications were pending. The respondent had witnessed bribe given to Dr. Shyam Aggarwal by the complainant for conspiring to conduct IMWG Meeting in complainant’s hotel and permitting him to try to influence members to give NOC to all his pending applications - Further, DW-2 in his cross-examination admitted that on 8th April, 2009 the Cabinet Secretariat granted NOC for applying for the export license by M/s. Titanium Taltalum Products Ltd. The documents produced in defence evidence prima facie fortify the claim of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Considering the fact that the view expressed by the learned Trial Court based on the evidence adduced is a plausible view, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|