J.Pandiaraj v. State By

Crl.A.No.299 of 2015 Crl.A.No.299 of 2015 N.SESHASAYEE, J.

This case is posted under the head "for being mentioned" though technically it has been listed suo motu by the Court, after giving notice to both sides. 2.This case was disposed of by this Court on 08.11.2024 and it was cited before this Court by the same counsel who appeared for the appellant in another case. While taking the Court through Paragraph 6.7, this Court noted that in line 3, the word 'not' is missing, which is very significant in this context. This correction does not touch upon the merit of the case on facts, but it forms part of the statement on law, which this Court made in Paragraph 6.7. 3.Accordingly, the first sentence of Paragraph 6.7 of the order dated 08.11.2024 will read as below:

"6.7 In cases, where the prosecution attempts to prove demand for bribe as an independent fact but through shaky evidence, it may not carry much weight if the reverse burden cast on the accused person is not adequately discharged. If however, if the accused person ..........................."

N.SESHASAYEE, J.

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.299 of 2015 Anu 4.The Registry is now required to carry necessary correction in the order and rehost the order afresh in the official website. If any certified copies of this order had been given to any of the parties herein, then the Registry is required to issue fresh certified copies free of charges.

25.11.2024 Anu Crl.A.No.299 of 2015 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis