9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he former charge and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2500/- under the second charge. Default stipulations were also there. The facts relating to that case have been summed up in the judgment of the High Court and we are not repeating the same here once again. In passing the order of acquittal, the High Court examined and analysed in detail the evidence of the case. The High Court found that the complainant CW 1 was not examined and the only explanation given was that he was not available in the country but no details were given as to where the complainant was. The defence of the respondent in this case has also been noted by the High Court in some detail. The prosecution case is that the demand of illegal gratificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be accepted that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied on. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Three-Judge Bench in Pannalal Damodar Rathi case(supra) held that there is grave suspicion about the appellant's complicity and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. (see para 11) This Court finds that the appreciation of the ratio in Panalal Damodar Rathi case(supra) by the High Court was correctly made in the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from that, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to some other pronouncements of this Court on the relevant question. In C.M. Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e investigating officer for the non-examination of the complainant, it was not open to the courts below to find out their own reason for not tendering the complainant in evidence. It has, therefore, to be held that the best evidence to prove the demand was not made available before the court. Those observations quoted above are clearly applicable in this case. In the context of those observations, this Court in paragraph 28 of A. Subair (supra) made it clear that the prosecution has to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and the accused should be considered innocent till it is proved to the contrary by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which is the vital ingredient to secure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
