Sixteen years after the CBI had booked Chandigarh Police Sub Inspector (SI) Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and an area dealer, Subhash Kataria, in a corruption case, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has acquitted the duo from the costs.
The duo – Sharma and Kataria – had moved the excessive courtroom difficult the order of conviction by the CBI courtroom in 2018. The duo have been sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment by the CBI courtroom and have been additionally imposed a advantageous of Rs 25,000 every.
The enchantment by Sharma and Kataria was disposed of by a bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.
As per allegations, Sudha Pandey, spouse of the complainant (Arvind Pandey) in opposition to the duo, was holding the Basic Energy of Lawyer (GPA) for a sales space positioned in Bridge Market, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, the place she was operating a ready-made clothes’ enterprise.
Sudha Pandey had employed Dina Nath Mishra on a fee foundation to help within the enterprise. A dispute arose between the complainant (Arvind Pandey) and Dina Nath Mishra over the occupation of the sales space. SI Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, in-charge of Neelam police publish, Sector 17, Chandigarh, and SI Ramesh Chand demanded a bribe of Rs 50,000 from the complainant to settle the dispute in his favour. Each these officers then requested the complainant to ship the bribe quantity on November 7, 2008, at Neelam police publish, Sector 17, Chandigarh. In a grievance to the CBI, a entice was laid on November 7, 2008.
Within the entice laid by the CBI, Kataria had allegedly accepted the bribe quantity on SI Sharma’s behalf. Whereas quickly after his arrest, SI Sharma was suspended on November 12, 2008. Nonetheless, he was reinstated on Might 7, 2010 by the Chandigarh Police.
The courtroom of CBI had framed costs in opposition to SI Sharma, SI Chand and Subhash Kataria in June 2013. The CBI courtroom then convicted Sharma beneath part 7 and part 13 (2) learn with 13 (1) of the PC Act and part 120 b (legal conspiracy) of IPC and Kataria beneath part 120 b (legal conspiracy) and part 8 of the PC Act, whereas acquitted SI Chand.
Listening to the enchantment, Justice Kaul held that part 7 of the PC Act imposes a stringent requirement on the prosecution to unambiguously show past any shadow of a doubt, the demand of bribe by the accused. With out proving this foundational truth, mere acceptance of cash could be inadequate to convict an accused. It’s a settled precept of legal jurisprudence that the guilt of an accused can’t relaxation on presumptions or conjectures however should be firmly rooted in cogent proof, whether or not direct or circumstantial.
Subsequently, in circumstances beneath the PC Act, the demand for a bribe should be substantiated by way of incontrovertible proof. The bench mentioned that it doesn’t discover any benefit within the submissions made by the standing counsel for the CBI that the restoration of bribe/tainted cash from Kataria proves each demand and acceptance of unlawful gratification.
Justice Kaul held, “Within the current case, the testimony of the complainant PW-8 (Arvind Pandey) is neither wholly dependable nor wholly unreliable. Slightly all the case of the prosecution is shrouded in thriller, making it extraordinarily troublesome to sift the chaff from the grain. With out another materials proof or witnesses to corroborate the demand of bribe, the appellants couldn’t be convicted, because the bribe demand within the current case remained unproven past cheap doubt.”
The excessive courtroom additionally famous that on this case, even in keeping with the testimony of the complainant, appellant No.2 (SI Sanjeev Kumar Sharma) solely requested him “han bhai paise laye ho” (“Brother, did you carry the cash?”), when he entered contained in the chamber. “This dialog doesn’t explicitly point out a requirement for unlawful gratification for settling the dispute between the complainant and Dina Nath Mishra”.
The excessive courtroom additionally identified within the judgment that “the alleged roles of appellant No.2 (SI Sanjeev Sharma) and accused SI Ramesh Chand have been almost an identical, but accused Ramesh Chand was not arrested, doubtless contributing to his acquittal solely as a result of he was not caught with bribe cash alongside the appellants. It should be famous that the prosecution has additionally not challenged the acquittal of Sub Inspector Ramesh Chand”.
The excessive courtroom mentioned that it was not a case the place appellant No.1 (Kataria) immediately requested for a bribe as a motive or reward for inducing the general public servants to settle the dispute in favour of the complainant. “Subsequently, appellant No.1 couldn’t have been convicted of the offence beneath part 8 of the PC Act. Moreover, for the reason that prosecution didn’t show the demand for a bribe, appellant No.1 can be entitled to be acquitted of the offences charged with.”