Swarn Chand v. State Of Punjab
!
"
#
# !
$%
#
$&
$' !
"
( #
)* #
+"
, - ./ 01/ 2
3 4 % # $ 3-- & "+
$ 5$& & $ 63- *
,
*, .
* $& $& !
"
3 #
"
*
& #
+"
, !% *
, % # 3 3
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that there was no occasion for the petitioner to have demanded bribe from the complainant as he was not even posted in the circle, where the property in question was situated; it was one Raman Kumar, who was to prepare the naksha zeem of the property of the
complainant. It has still further been asserted by the learned counsel that although the prosecution is claiming that there was an audio recording between the complainant and the petitioner with respect to the demand of 717,000/- as bribe, however, even as per the audio recording, there was no specific demand made by the petitioner for bribe to get the work of the complainant executed. Rather, the petitioner, on being asked by the complainant as to what his commission would be, had categorically refused to accept any bribe from the complainant for himself.
It has also been contended by the learned counsel that Raman Kumar, with whom the complainant had settled the bribe money, had been exonerated and declared innocent by the investigating agency." Order dated 22.01.2025 "Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that it is clearly discernible from the transcript of the audio recording that there is no specific demand much less acceptance audible vis-à-vis the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is willing to join and cooperate with the investigating agency; he under to give his voice sample to the investigating agency. "
, #
"&
&#,
3 #
! % *
#
% *
* * +
, #
& #
%*! % *
#
% *
* * + 8 "&
#
9 % *
& , ,
*
1%
"% #
,,
&
3 & ",
"!
,
-56
:-56./ !"#$!"%"&
;
#
)*:
< :/ ;
#
", < :/