DEV RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment of the Trial Court dated 25.01.2006 and order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment of two months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as under: -

(3.) PER contra learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. It is submitted that although the complainant PW -5 has turned hostile but he has not disputed the fact that a complaint was made by him and he had approached the office for a duplicate permit but he has confused the issue by introducing a person referred to as ,,Sahab without giving his particulars. He further submits that Trial Court has rightly applied the law with respect to placing reliance on the evidence of a hostile witness and the Trial Court has only relied upon that portion of the testimony of PW -5 which is reliable and trustworthy. He further submits that the case of the prosecution has been supported by PW -6 as also by PW -8. Both the witnesses have proved the scientific evidence on record to show that the solution had changed colour and that all the bottles were duly kept in the malkhana by PW -2 whose evidence also corroborates the evidence of PW -5. Learned counsel for the appellant in rebuttal submits that since the evidence of PW -5 is unreliable there is no corroboration to his evidence which can be looked into.