Keshav Dutt V/s State of Haryana

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2010-08-19
Case No: 1560 OF 2010
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: Altmas Kabir & A.K.Patnaik
Subject: Criminal Law-Corruption
Statutes / Acts: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section: S.13(1)(d)
Bench Strength: Double Bench
State of Appellant(s): Haryana
History of Case No: convicted by the Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Case Note / Description :

The appellant had neither received the bribe money nor was he present at the spot when the same was received by the co-accused, who handed over the same to `M', but the involvement of the appellant did not require his presence at the time of the raid as he was connected with the offence in view of Ex.PR which was the paper on which the meter reading was jotted down allegedly by the appellant. Ex.PR was proved by the handwriting expert to be in the handwriting of the appellant. In that context, the question whether the opinion of the handwriting expert could have been relied upon without examining him was relevant. The report of the fingerprint expert who was not examined, indicated that a specimen writing was given by the appellant and on a comparison of the same with the writings in Ex.PR, the fingerprint expert came to the conclusion that they were written by the same person. The trial court skirted the issue by holding that the defence could have examined an expert to rebut the report. The High Court recorded that the report having gone unrebutted could be relied upon without any demur. The views of the trial court as well of the High Court in that regard cannot be accepted. When the trial court chose to rely on the report of the handwriting expert, it ought to have examined the handwriting expert in order to give an opportunity to the appellant and the other accused to cross-examine the said expert. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant and the other accused had admitted the report of the handwriting expert. Both the trial court and the High Court erred in denying the appellant such opportunity and shifting the onus on him to disprove Ex.PR which was not formally proved by the prosecution. It was only the report of the handwriting expert, Ex.PY, which connected the appellant with the offence on account of Ex.PR which was said to be in his handwriting. Since the appellant had neither received the money nor was he present at the spot from where the other accused were apprehended, his case has to be treated on a different footing and since his complicity was not established beyond doubt on the basis of Ex.PR and Ex.PY, he must be given the benefit of doubt. The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)