Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

- 21 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33979 statement given before the police just to refresh his memory. The said statement so given by PW.2 has been marked as Ex.D1. That means, this PW.2 appears to be tutored witness and who had seen the records before entering the witness box. Even he has prepared some notes as per Ex.D1. This itself shows that, this PW.2 is a planted witness by the prosecution so as to suit the purpose of the prosecution.

- 26 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33979 1589. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been referred to by the learned Trial Court.

29. No doubt, under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the witnesses may be provided an opportunity to refresh their memory. Evidently, PW.2 is not the Investigating Officer or any expert witness and he is a pancha. Therefore, as held in various judgments that the witnesses refreshing their memory by reading the records before giving evidence in the Court is definitely prohibited under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. So, in the light of the said provision, the statutory presumption is very much available in favour of the accused. Therefore, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, though Section 20 of the P.C.Act speaks with regard to the presumption in favour of the prosecution agency, but insofar as Section 7 of the P.C.Act is concerned, it is settled position of law that, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of the currency notes cannot constitute the offence punishable