Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.19 seconds)
State vs . 1. Virender Kumar Pal on 3 September, 2011 cites

State Of U.P vs Dr.G.K. Ghosh on 21 September, 1983

The density of the stigma to be attached to a witness as an accomplice depends upon the degree of his complicity in the offence. Suspicion towards his role as an accomplice should vary according to the extent and nature of his complicity. It must be considered in each case whether the bribe giving or payment of gratification was done in such a way that independent persons had no occasion to witness such acts. '' Furthermore, in another case reported as State of U.P. vs. Dr.G.K.Ghosh AIR 1984 SC 1453 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:­ "By and large a citizen is somewhat reluctant rather than anxious, to complain to the Vigilance Department and to have a trap arranged even if illegal gratification is demanded by a Government servant. There are numerous reasons for the reluctance. In the first place, C.C. No. 40/11 Page No. 29 of 37 he has to make a number of visits to the office of Vigilance Department and to wait on a number of officers. He has to provide his own currency notes for arranging a trap. He has to comply with several formalities and sign several statements. He has to accompany the officers and participants of the raiding party and play the main role. All the while he has to remain away from his job, work, or avocation. He has to sacrifice his time and effort while doing so. Thereafter, he has to attend the court at the time of the trial from day to day. He has to withstand the searching cross examination by the defence counsel as if he himself is guilty of some fault. In the result, a citizen who has been harassed by a Government officer, has to face all these hazards. And if the explanation offered by the accused is accepted by the court, he has to face the humiliation of being considered as a person who tried to falsely implicate a Government servant, not to speak of facing the wrath of the Government servants of the department concerned, in his future dealings with the department. No one would therefore be too keen or too C.C. No. 40/11 Page No. 30 of 37 anxious to face such an ordeal. Ordinarily, it is only when a citizen feels oppressed by a feeling of being wronged and finds the situation to be beyond endurance, that he adopts the course of approaching the Vigilance Department for laying a trap. His evidence cannot therefore be easily or lightly brushed aside. Of course, it cannot be gainsaid that it does not mean that the court should be oblivious of the need for caution and circumspection bearing in mind that one can conceive of cases where an honest or strict Government official may be falsely implicated by a vindictive person to whose demand, for showing favours, or for according a special treatment by giving a go­bye to the rules, the official refuses to yield."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 96 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1