GHULAM MOHAMMAD DAR Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 5/10/2015 passed by learned Special Judge Anticorruption, Kashmir, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby appellant has been convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sec. 5(1)(d) read 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act [ for short "the PC Act"] and Sec. 161 of RPC. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Sec. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs.10000..00 He has further been sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for offence punishable under Sec. 161 RPC. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that complainant-PW Abdul Majeed Misgar approached Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, with a written complaint alleging therein that the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2000.00for processing his GP fund case. On the basis of this complaint, FIR No.16/2004 for offences under Sec. 5(1)(d) read 5(2) of the PC Act and Sec. 161 of RPC came to be registered, whereafter, on 26/7/2000, a trap was laid by the sleuths of Vigilance Organization accompanied by independent witnesses and the complainant. As per prosecution case, the appellant/accused was caught red handed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.2000.00from the complainant. The tainted money is stated to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant. After investigation of the case, the aforesaid offences were found established against the appellant and charge sheet was laid before the trial court.

(3.) Charges for the aforesaid offences were framed against the appellant/accused and his plea was recorded. The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution was directed to examine witnesses in support of the charges. The prosecution examined as many as 12 out of 14 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant/accused and his statement under Sec. 342 of J&K Cr. P. C. was recoded. The appellant/accused did not enter defence and did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned trial court, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, came to the conclusion that charges against the appellant/accused are established and, accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence came to be passed.