9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder: It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant, who was the "station writer" at the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, demanded a sum of Rs. 1500/- from the complainant PW2, for releasing certain articles belonging to him, which were taken into custody by the police. PW2 was the surety to an accused in a criminal case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thiruvanathapuram and since the accused in that particular case had absconded, PW2 was ordered to pay Rs. 3000/- as penalty and a warrant was issued against him in this regard. Therefore, he was apprehended by the police and his personal belongings, including the bicycle, wallet, fountain pen, etc. were retained by the police. PW2 was subsequently released by the Magistrate, wherein he was given further time to remit the money. It is the case of the prosecution that when PW2 approached the police station on 09.12.1998, to get back his belongings, the station writer de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing certain legal grounds for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him. It is the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that both in the First Information Statement and in the F.I.R, the name of the appellant is not mentioned, specifically, in regard to the demand of the bribe made by him from the complainant PW2. However, it is specifically mentioned in the complaint that the person who had demanded the bribe was the "station writer" of the Fort Police Station. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has never been assigned the work of the "station writer" at the police station and further urged that the prosecution has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the same against the appellant to substantiate the charge against him. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the de-facto complainant had deposed before the Special Judge in this case that one Ajith, was the "station writer" of the Fort Police Station, who had demanded the bribe from him for the return of the seized articles to him. It is further stated that PW4, who is the Sub-Inspector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant, PW2 was specifically told by the officer of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Special Investigation Unit to handover the bribe-money to the appellant only when he would ask for the same. Hence, the appellant would have received the money only when he would have asked for the same and therefore, there was demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant. On the basis of the aforesaid rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties, we have to find out whether the concurrent findings on the charge under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, recorded by the High Court against the appellant is legal and valid and whether the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under Section 13(2) of the Act, imposed upon the appellant by the High Court, warrants interference by this Court. With reference to the abovementioned rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record, we have examined the concurrent finding of fact on the charge made against the appellant. It has been continuously held by this Court in a catena of cases after interpretation of the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act that the demand of illegal gratification b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as he had refused to acknowledge the ownership of the tea shop, on the premises of which the bribe money was allegedly accepted by the appellant from the complainant. Hence, it is safe to say that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant had accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In support of the same, the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant has rightly placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.[(2014) 13 SCC 55], which reads thus:- "8. ......there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
