Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.34 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 7 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Mangat Ram Hazari Mal And Another vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab. on 14 September, 1967
110 In support of his arguments Ld. Defence Counsel has
relied upon Mangat Ram Vs. State of Punjab 2004 (2) CC Cases
(HC) 61 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh has held as follows
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7 & 13 (2) Plea
of false implication - Plea that basic ingredient of demand of money
not proved by any independent source as shadow witness did not
support prosecution case shadow witness neither went to office of
Vigilance Department with complainant nor any demand or
payment made by complainant in his presence as stated by
prosecution No occasion for appellant to make a demand for bribe -
Held: Basic lacuna of independent corroboration with regard to trap
is enough to throw doubts over case of prosecution - Appeal
allowed."
Section 162 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Raghbir Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 1975
51 In Raghbir Singh Vs State of Punjab (1976) 1 SCC
145 while discarding the oral and documentary evidence laid on
C C No.12/2009 39/75
40
behalf of the prosecution is not such as to inspire confidence in the
mind of the Court, the Supreme Court observed in para No.11 as
follows:
" We may take this opportunity of pointing out that it would
be desirable if in cases of this kind where a trap is laid for a public
servant, the marked current notes, which are used for tte purpose of
trap, are treated with phenolphthalein power so that the
handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant
can be detected by chemical process and the court does not have
to depend on oral evidence which is something of a dubious
character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public servant."
52 In para no.11 of this authority it is further held as
follows, by Hon'ble Supreme Court:
Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Shri Om Prakash on 7 December, 1971
" It was contended by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that
the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when challenged
by the Inspector was inadmissible as it was hit by section 162
Criminal Procedure Code. He relied on a decision of the Andhra
Pradesh Hingh Court in D.V. Narisimhan V.State,(AIR 1969
andh Pra 271). We do not agree with the submissions of Sh.
Anthony. There is a clear distinction between the conduct of a
person against whom an offence is alleged which is admissible
under section 8 of the Evidence Act, if such conduct is influenced
by any fact in issue or relevant fact and the statement made to a
police officer in the course of an investigation which is hit by sec.
162 Criminal Procedure code. What is excluded by sec. 162
Criminal Procedure Code is the statement made to a police officer in
the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to the
conduct of an accused person ( not amounting to a statement) when
confronted or questioned by a police officer during the course of an
investigation. For example, the evidence of the circumstances,
simpliciter,that an accused person led a police officer and pointed
out the place where stolen articles or weapons which might have
been used in the commission of the offence where found hidden,
would be admissible as conduct, u/s 8 of the evidence Act,
irrespective of whether any statement by the accused
contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within
the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act(vide Himachal
Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash AIR 1972 SC 975.