Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Judgment 228 apeal197.19 acceptance of the alleged gratification is not proved. He submitted that the amount is recovered from the table and, therefore, possession of the tainted amount admittedly is not from the accused. The demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to attract provisions of the said Act. He submitted that the entire investigation carried out by the officer of the bureau is a tainted investigation. PW6 Sachin Halmare has drawn script of the alleged conversation between the complainant and the accused on 29.1.2015 and obtained hash value, whereas the trap was laid on 28.1.2015. PW6 Sachin Halmare nowhere stated that he prepared the script on 28.1.2015. Thus, the panchanama appears to be prepared subsequently. He further submitted that the evidence of the complainant is not truthful. On the point of demand, Shadow Pancha PW2 Shantaram Yewale has not supported and corroborated the prosecution story. There is no evidence as to the initial demand. The electronic evidence produced to prove the demand at the time of the trap is also not trustworthy as it is not according to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act. The sanction accorded by Sanctioning Authority .....9/-

33. PW5 Trap Officer Kishor Parwate, narrated about the entire procedure carried out by him. His evidence shows that the scrip of the conversation between the complainant and the accused was drawn. The hash value of the conversation was taken out and, thereafter, hash value generation certificate was issued, which is at Exhibit-34. The bribe amount is also seized. Though he is cross examined, during his cross examination .....21/-

Judgment 228 apeal197.19 nothing is brought on record to falsify his version regarding the conversation recorded in the Digital Voice Recorder.

34. PW6 Sachin Halmare, is also examined by the prosecution who has drawn the said hash value certificate. On the basis of memory card of the Digital Voice Recorder, he prepared the script Exhibit-35 and also issued certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is at Exhibit-65.

Judgment 228 apeal197.19 the electronic evidence which sufficiently proves involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.

38. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution placed reliance on the electronic evidence and examined PW6 Sachin Halmare, who transcribed the script of the alleged conversation on the basis of conversation recorded in the Digital Voice Recorder. He has drawn script on 29.1.2015. Whereas, the trap is of 28.1.2015. The hash value certificate issued by PW6 Sachin Halmare is also unreliable as he has not stated anything about the calculation of hash value. As per the evidence of the Investigating Officer, hash value was collected on 28.1.2015, whereas the certificate is of 29.1.2015. To substantiate his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar vs. State of Maharashtra10 wherein it is held that it s the duty of the court while basing conviction on the basis of identification of voice. The court has to take into consideration factors (a). the quality of the recording of the disputed voice, (b). the gap in time between the listener hearing the known voice and his attempt to 10 (2011)4 SCC 143 .....25/-