AJAY GUPTA Vs. STATE THR. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Criminal Appeal No. 469/2003 was filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 05.07.2003 of the then Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No. 68/97 in R.C. No. 80(A)/96/CBI/ACB/ N. Delhi whereby the appellant was held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and vide the impugned order on sentence dated 07.07.2003 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with directionS that the substantive sentences would run concurrently and in the event of default of fine, the convict i.e. the appellant would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months of each count.

(2.) During the pendency of the appeal vide an application bearing Crl. M. No. 8205/2005 under Section 311 r/w Section 391 and Section 482 of the of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 filed by the appellant seeking issuance of the directions for recording additional evidence in the interests of justice and to avoid miscarriage of justice, this Court whilst observing that it was a fit case in which exercise of its powers under Section 311 r/w Section 391 of the of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should be exercised, directed the recording of additional evidence by the Trial Court as prayed by the appellant and the Trial Court was directed to examine Dr. C.S. Prabhu, Dr. Bipin Kumar, Dr. Sumit Sural, Kokan Kumar Mandal, the injured, In-Charge VRK (South District), New Delhi with records and In-Charge, HAPR Branch, VI Battalion, DAP with records and to send the recorded evidence to this Court for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.

(3.) The appellant had submitted during the course of the submissions made in relation to the application bearing Crl. M. No. 8205/2005 under Section 311 r/w Section 391 and Section 482 of the of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 that the prosecution case against him was false as he was not present at the time of the alleged raid and at the time of the payment of bribe money to him he was not present at PS Badarpur and in fact he was present at Safdarjung Hospital in connection with the investigation of a case and contended that the records of the hospital and police station can establish that he was not present at the time of alleged raid. The appellant had further contended that he was entitled to produce the witnesses and evidence.