REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VED PARKASH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

<RC>LAWSUIT(P&H) 2014 0 1922;</RC> HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA <JGN>BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON</JGN> <APL>VED PARKASH</APL> <RP>STATE OF HARYANA</RP> <DT>MAY 21,2014</DT> <AT>CRIMINAL APPEAL 290 OF 2010</AT> 21.05.2014 <SUBJECT>CRIMINAL</SUBJECT> CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 SEC 173;CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973 SEC 313;PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988 SEC 13(2);PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988 SEC 13;PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988 SEC 20;PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988 SEC 13(1)(D);PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988 SEC 7; <SI><ACT>CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973</ACT> <S>S.173</S><ACT>CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,1973</ACT> <S>S.313</S><ACT>PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988</ACT> <S>S.13(2)</S><ACT>PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988</ACT> <S>S.13</S><AC [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN LAL VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
SAT PAUL VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED]
M K HARSHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
SUBHASH PARBAT SONVANE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PURNANDU BISWAS [REFERRED]
T SUBRAMANIAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
V VENKATA SUBBARAO VS. STATE [REFERRED]
GANAPATHI SANYA NAIK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
HARIRAM PATEL VS. STATE OF M P [REFERRED]
SHAIKH SADIQ SHAIKH RAHIM VS. SHABANABI SAIYED SHAUKAT ALI [REFERRED]
ANAND PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
SHIV NARAIN SHARMA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
HARBANS SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
PRABHU DAYAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
AMRIK SINGH SON OF NAND SINGH; KEHAR SINGH SON OF NAND SINGH AND SURINDER SINGH SON OF TARLOK SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Details of the Appeal

(2.) The prosecution case put in a narrow compass is being reproduced as below:-

(3.) The complainant produced Rs.5,000/- in cash containing three currency notes of the denomination of Rs.1,000/- each, three currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and five currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each to the Inspector, Vigilance Bureau. All the currency notes were taken into police possession, a list whereof was prepared. Inspector Ved Parkash had put his initials on the currency notes and had also applied phenolphthalein powder (P. Powder). The currency notes were thereafter handed over to the complainant, who was directed to hand over the same to the accused on specific demand. The complainant was accompanied by shadow witness Ramesh Kumar s/o Krishan Lal. The shadow witness was instructed to hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and then to give a pre-determined signal to the rest of the trap party on receipt of bribe amount by the accused. Laying of the trap

Click here to view full judgment.

VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address