) ALD(Crl.) 830 (SC ), (2018 )2 CALLT72 (SC ), III (2017 )CCR234 (SC ), 124 (2017 )CLT1060 , 2017 (4 )Crimes64 (SC ), 2017 (3 )ECrN (NULL ) 433 , 2017 (4 )ECrN (NULL ) 95 , 2017 /INSC/621 , 2017 (3 )JCC1978 , 2018 (1 )N.C.C.98 , 2017 (3 )RCR(Criminal)694 , 2018 (1 )RLW442 (SC ), 2017 (7 )SCALE702 , (2017 )8 SCC136 , 2017 (7 ) SCJ 432 , [2017 ]8 SCR109 , 2017 (3 )UC1730 , ,MANU/SC/0809/2017
Arun Mishra#Amitava Roy#2147SC3150Judgment/OrderAIC#AIR#ALD(Cri)#CalLT#CCR#CLT#Crimes#ECrN#ECrN#INSC#JCC#MANU#NCC#RCR (Criminal)#RLW#SCALE#SCC#SCJ#SCR#UCAmitava Roy,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2017-7-19Public servant,Fabricating false evidence,Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice,Indian Penal Code57731,57737,16247,16344,16759,57746,57724 -->
MANU/SC/0809/2017
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 207 of 2016)
Decided On: 14.07.2017
Appellants: Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his L.R. Vs. Respondent: State of Punjab
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy JUDGMENT
Amitava Roy, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant, heir of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) has carried this appeal to this Court against the affirmation of his conviction Under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act'), recorded at the first instance by the learned Special Judge, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) in his judgment and order dated 04.09.2009. Thereby the predecessor of the present Appellant had been, as a consequence of his conviction, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence Under Section 7 and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- therefor and further sentenced to 2 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence Under Section 13(2) of the Act along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with related default sentence.
3. Though this verdict was challenged before the High Court by the original convict, he, during the pendency of the appeal expired, whereupon the present Appellant got herself substituted with a bid to purge him of the stigma. She having failed in her endeavour as the appeal has been dismissed, seeks redress from this Court.
4. We have heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
5. Sans the unnecessary details, the essence of the prosecution case is that the predecessor of the Appellant, Mukhtiar Singh (also referred to hereinafter as original accused) while was serving as Station House Officer of Police Station, Ajnala was entrusted with the investigation of the case launched against Sarabjit Singh (complainant) by his (Sarabjit) wife Under Sections 406, 498A Indian Penal Code. It was alleged by the complainant-Sarabjit Singh that the original Accused in order to favour him in the investigation demanded and received bribe of Rs. 3,000/- from him (Sarabjit) and in the process and at the fag-end of the probe, demanded a further amount of Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification to file a report of exoneration. That........