Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. PW6 Inspr. A.K. Kapur deposed that he seized paper slip Ex.PW6/A besides recovery of money. However, did not remember from where he seized the same. He denied to the suggestion that he had planted said two documents subsequently with a view to falsely implicate the appellant.

17. PW7 Constable Vijender Kumar deposed that he used to do writing work pertaining to the Court as per the directions of the Reader. He had seen the Robkar Ex.PW1/E written in his own handwriting.

18. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no explanation as to why PW7 has not been arrayed as an accused or why no TIP of this witness has been conducted in the presence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 to rule out the possibility of tall thin person being PW7 himself.

19. Ld. Counsel further submitted that in the Statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant replied to question 45 "It is incorrect". Robkar was not prepared on his instruction. He was authorized to sign at Point A on this Robkar in CBI Office after his arrest.

20. Ld. Counsel further submitted that neither the complainant PW1 nor PW3 and PW4, shadow witness and recovery witness respectively have supported the case of the case of the prosecution despite, ld. Trial Judge has convicted the appellant.

23. He has proved the pre-raid proceedings and handing over memo Ex.PW2/B. He deposed that the trap was led and money was recovered by PW4 Subhash Chand, which comprised of 10 GC Notes of Rs.100/- denomination and on comparison it tallied with the number of GC noted mentioned in Ex.PW2/B. PW1 also proved the post raid proceedings / recovery vide Ex.PW2/C and identified the GC Notes as Ex.P1 to P10 as the same GC Notes were used for the trap and recovered from the appellant. He admitted his signatures on search memo Ex.PW1/D and on recovery slip Robkar bearing the signature of appellant Ex.PW1/E. He also admitted the application for cancellation of warrants Ex.PW1/F.

40. However, as per the deposition of PW5 Sh S S Mehta, the then Special Executive Magistrate, he did not pass any order for cancellation of NBWs against the complainant - Mahesh Kumar Sharma. From the report of PW8 Sh N C. Sood - hand writing expert, it is established that it is the appellant who had signed the robkar Ex.PW1/E. Accordingly, as opined by learned Trial Court that under normal course of circumstances, no Reader to the Court would have done it without ulterior motive. The mere fact that appellant had signed the aforesaid robkar for cancellation of warrants without there being any order from the Special Executive Magistrate, established that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant.