Parveen Kumar v. State Of Haryana
!"
"#$%$ &'(!)#!
*"+,
-' .
/-0 1
!
"
! 1 , 2+ 34'
#
! " ! ! ! %
& ' "
()##(**+ !,-./#*0(**( ! . #0%#&%&1
#0%(& 2 ! #)33 "
! #!% (
! 4
"
%!
& "
! #*0(**($
" 1
5 5(6**78!! 1 " "
"" !
1 !
6**781
! 1
1 -8 1
11 1 !!!
!
"
" " " 5 5
9 " 11 5 (#6
1
" !!
, !
!! !1!91
"
!
!
" ! !
1
!
"
"
!
0
! :
: + - ! 0#022
!
! 1!
! "1 !!
!1
1
"
! 6 -!
:
1 / !
" ! 8 %#& ; 5 <: #))68)/ ! 1
=
2 ! "" > ' ? 5 "
!
9!5 (**# ""1 #/#)3)@ %(& !
!
!! 1 !5 5@ %0& "
8=
" " ! 1 5
!! " @
5 %+& ! !1!
@ %6&
" ! 5 !
1
!1
" <: <:51
!
!
" 1
"
1@ %/&
! (* !11"
1
! ! ! !
! .#0%#&%&1 ! #0%(& ! ' "
()##(**+ 1! A!
, -
. ! "
0 ***78 "
#0%#&%&
! #0%(& ! "
0 ***78 "
&!"&!$ &% . ?!
5
!
$ 5
11 ! 51 !
5
1 ! !! ! 5 55
$ !
1
!
1
!
3 ?!
"' "
5
!
1
!
5
! 5
15
5
!1
! 5 =B(8 %1
&1 1 ) ! ! ! 5 1 /"6 37 %$!$ & #* - " ! ! ! . ! !! ! 5 ! ! ! "
! ! ! . !
! (* ! ! 5 1 !! ! " !! ! 8C -
! (* !!5 ! ! ! . ! ! #0%#&%& !$ ! 5
5 55
!$ !! !55 5 ## -1 5" !
1 "' "
### - 80) &!) 99 :0! !"
"3 &6 & ,24 2+$9$& 34 ;, 2
;
!
!
" # $
%&
' %&
""
(&)(*)*) * )
*
"
" +
" " "
"
(&
, ##( - 0 < + =:0! !"
00,24 0002+$9$& 34 , 2 -. !
%/
"
(&)(*)*) *)
*
!
"
%/
%/ , ##0 -0>&? && :0! !"
&@)+ + @"%),;24 2+$9$& 34( (, 2 5 -The prosecution examined the other fair price shop dealers in Kurnool as PWs 3, 4 and 6 to prove that the accused was receiving monthly mamools from them. PWs 4 and 6 did not state so and they were declared hostile. PW-3 though in the examination-in-chief stated so, in the cross-examination turned round and stated that the accused never asked any monthly mamool and he did not pay Rs.50/- at any time. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was demanded by the accused and also when the money was allegedly handed-over to the accused by the complainant. The complainant himself had disowned his complaint and has turned hostile and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand.
In short there is no proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. The possession is also admitted by the accused. It is settled law that mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 since demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non to constitute the said offence.
( established. It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification proof of acceptance will not follow. Reference may be made to the two decisions of threeJudge Bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014(2) RCR (Criminal 410; 2014(2) Recent Apex Judgments (R. A. J.) 570; (2014) 13 SCC 55] and P. Satyanarayna Murthy v. The District Inspector of Police and another [2015(4) RCR (Criminal) 350; 2015(4) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A. J.) 625: (2015(0) SCALE 724]. ##+ -! !"
>&= *:0- @ &- ) &/ 31"+9 ,254 ;5, 2 -((
(.00+
"
+
"
1
"
%/
(.00"
"
" "
"
(.00
%/
"
2
" "
1 "
2
"
A
!
"
)3 '"# $ % &'"
()* # ! +(,- % ' # % %.
/ 0! # (-1 !"
* "!"! # /,,-
+ "02 3#"2
,*4
/!!+ -
5 "&
* "!" ! # (, 4
+ " 0 3#"2
/4
!!/+ 45 6 #(
1 1 $
" 1
(6**78 !! 1 " "
!
$ !! ! "1 "
!! !
1!
$ " ! ! " #0* " 11
1
(#6$ !
!
1!
$ !
5 5
" !! !
" " ! B#+8- % 11 &1 5 ! 51 !
D!
#
1 1 E #0 $
!
1
"
! " ! !! !- ! 5 " 1 ! 51 !
$ ! 5
" " ! 5
#+ $
! 1
!
5
!
#*0(**(#** 1
51
!
#**$11 ;1= 1 1 <:=F1 :
=B0=B+ ! !
! #*0(**((**
1 "
! $ 1 "5 ! #(0*##6
5 5
! !
-1 5
1
(#6 $ ! 5
1 5 5 =B(=B+ !
$ ! 1 ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!!5 5 "!! !5 5 9
!! !5 5
! (* !!51"
#6 9 ! " ! 8
!
" ! ' "
! ! C !5
!!
! ! !! !
" " ! #/
" ' "
! ! ! "
!!C 5
#.
1 1 (!)#!
*"+, #B
"7 G (B 5 G