Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms".

24. That being the position on record, the learned counsel for the applicant has invited our attention towards the MA and the documents attached therein in the shape of DDR Entries No.14A and 16A dated 15.04.1996, copy of FIR/police report dated 15.04.1996 in criminal case No.99/96 u/s 12/5/99 of Gambling Act, copy of site plan, copy of recovery memo, search memo, statements of Devender Singh, applicant (Ranbir Singh), Rampal Singh, Sudhir, Krishanpal Singh, Nanhe Mal, Subhash Chand, Vinod Kumar recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.PC") and conviction slip etc. (available at pages 182 to 217).

27. At the first instance, no implicit reliance can be placed on the indicated documents, i.e., DDR entries, recovery memo etc. and the statements recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.PC during the course of investigation of a criminal case, in view of complete legal bar as contemplated u/s 162 Cr.PC, which posits that "No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it, nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided. In other words, such statements/documents can only be used to contradict the statements of the witnesses in the trial of that very particular case and otherwise cannot be used for any other purpose in the present case.

34. Meaning thereby, there is a positive evidence on record, that on 16.04.1996 at 10.11 AM, applicant along with other charged officials have actually received an amount of Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification/bribe money from the complainant and released the accused after illegal detention.

35. Now adverting to the main argument of the learned counsel, that the DD entries No.14A and 16A dated 15.04.1996 (authenticity of which is very doubtful in the absence and loss of original record) and other indicated documents (available at pages 182 to 217) pertaining to the investigation of some other case vide FIR No.99/96 under Gambling Act at PS Welcome, will not come to the rescue of the applicant in the present controversy. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that all these two DDR entries, FIR, site plan, disclosure statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.PC pertained to 15.04.1996, whereas specific allegations against the applicant are that he along with other delinquent officials came to PW-4 at 11.10 AM on 16.04.1996 and received the bribe money. The applicant has not produced any document, even to suggest remotely that he remained busy in any manner throughout the day in the investigation of indicated criminal case, particularly when the specific case of the prosecution (PW-4) is that applicant and his other co-delinquents came to him at 11.10AM on 16.04.1996 and had taken an amount of Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification and released the detenu, after accepting the bribe money.