Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

23. Learned counsel appearing for A-6 submitted that though A-6 was implicated in the abovesaid offence, however, he is not a partner and no documents to show that he was a partner in the firm of A-7 and A-8 has been produced by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the document, Ex.P- http://www.judis.nic.in  _____________________ Crl. A. Nos.670, 702, 703, 713, 750/2009 124, which was placed to show the details of the partners of the firm does not reflect the name of A-6. Further, it is the deposition of P.W.s 17 and 18 that A-6 is not a partner of their firm. Such being the case, the conspiracy theory projected by the prosecution that A-6 in connivance with A-4, A-5 and the other accused, conspired to gain pecuniary advantage having not been proved, the finding recorded by the trial court for convicting A-6 is wholly unsustainable.

41. P.W.23, no doubt is the enquiry officer, who conducted the enquiry into the alleged transaction. P.W.23, in cross examination has categorically deposed that though Ex.P-140 is the report submitted by him, however, he has not signed in the said report. It is the further deposition of P.W.23 that Ex.P-139 http://www.judis.nic.in  _____________________ Crl. A. Nos.670, 702, 703, 713, 750/2009 contains the statements of the accused and others. However, P.W.23 has categorically deposed that the said statements were not recorded by him.