Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF PUNJAB versus HC OM PARKASH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State of Punjab v. HC Om Parkash - CRM-242-MA-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6868 (11 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Crl. Misc. No.242-MA of 2006

Date of decision : September 12, 2006.

State of Punjab

.... Appellant

versus

HC Om Parkash

... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

Present : Mr. K.S. Boparai, Additional A.G. Punjab for the appellant.

A.N. JINDAL, J.

State of Punjab by way of the instant application has sought special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 2.1.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Ferozepur vide which the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') HC Om Parkash was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') framed against him.

The respondent being the public servant was charged under Section 7.13(2) of the Act, the allegations that he on 27.3.2003 received a sum of Rs.800/- on account of illegal gratification from Ram Krishan complainant for awarding undue favour to him. The trial Court on conclusion of the trial acquitted the respondent on the ground that the Ram Krishan complainant as well as Jangir Singh shadow witness did not support the prosecution case; Ram Krishan complainant in his statement has specifically explained that Mithu Ram demanded Rs.1000/- on account of settlement with him and he had gone to the Police Station to pay the said amount to Mithu Ram and not to the accused. Under these circumstances the testimony of Harvinder Singh, Agriculture Development Officer (PW-7) and DSP Vinod Kumar (PW- 10) are not of much avail to the prosecution and the necessary ingredients of demand and acceptance are not proved on record.

Crl. Misc. No.242-MA of 2006

Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, we observe that all the material points have been elaborately dealt with by the trial Court while extending benefit of doubt to the respondent.

Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal is hereby declined.

(A.N. JINDAL)

JUDGE

September 12, 2006 (VIRENDER SINGH)

'deepak' JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.