Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rambharose Shakya on 16 August, 2017
Bench: N.V. Ramana, Prafulla C. Pant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.332 OF 2013
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s)
Versus
RAM BHAROSE SHAKYA Respondent(s)
O R D E R
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.6.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 76 of 2004 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, wherein the High Court has set aside the order dated 21.1.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Bhind in Special Case No. 3/01 convicting the respondent for the charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR Date: 2017.08.21 Corruption Act, 1988 and thereby sentencing him to 12:34:33 PKT Reason: suffer further rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.500/- for each offence, in default, a 2 further rigorous imprisonment of six months for each offence with a stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
The High Court, after considering the material, has come to a definite conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was a demand for bribe. Secondly, the respondent-accused was caught, in a nearby S.T.D. booth, on a crowded street, but the Phenolphthalein Powder test was conducted in the rest house which is 1-1/2 kms. away. Thirdly, the request, which was made by the complainant, was regarding the mutation of certain land, which was subject matter of pending civil litigation. In this context, the certified copy of the proceedings of the Civil Court has been brought on record, which has also been proved by the defence witnesses DW-1 and DW-2. This clearly portrays that the matter was pending before the Civil Court.
Taking into consideration of the aforesaid facts, the High Court has rightly reversed the judgment passed by the Special Judge and acquitted the respondent-accused from all charges.
It is to be noted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has brought to our notice that the respondent-accused has already undergone approximately ten months of imprisonment.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we 3 see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
.......................J. (N.V. RAMANA) .......................J. (PRAFULLA C. PANT) New Delhi, August 16, 2017 4 ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.10 SECTION II-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 332/2013 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appellant(s) VERSUS RAMBHAROSE SHAKYA Respondent(s) Date : 16-08-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Appellant(s) Ms. Prachi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rusia, Adv. Ms. Chaitanya, Adv.
Ms. Pragya Garg, Adv. Mr. Avi Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Shukla, Adv. Mr. Usman, Adv.
For Mr. C. D. Singh, AOR For Respondent(s) Ms. Nilofar Khan, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUKHBIR PAUL KAUR) (S. SIVARAMAKRISHNA)
AR CUM PS ASST.REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)