Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, May 23: The High Court has upheld the sentence awarded to the police officer for gratification charges by recording that the sentence is lucid and does not call for any interference.
Assistant Sub Inspector Bharat Bhushan challenged the judgment passed by the Special Judge Anti Corruption whereby he has been convicted of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs 5000 for offences under Sections 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of PC Act.
Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed the appeal of convictee and recorded that the prosecution has been able to prove the initial demand of illegal gratification by the appellant-Bhushan from the complaint, the demand and voluntary acceptance of tainted money/bribe by the appellant from the complainant at the time of trap proceedings as also the recovery of tainted money from the appellant.
“Once these ingredients are established against the appellant, a legal presumption in terms of Section 4 of the J&K PC Act arises that the appellant has obtained tainted money as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act or for showing or for forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavor”, Justice Dhar observed.
Court after perusal of the evidence said, it has been proved from the record that the appellant was investigating the case registered against the complainant and, as such, he had opportunity and occasion to demand bribe or illegal gratification from him for extending favour to him or forbear from showing disfavor to him.
“It has also come in the evidence on record that the appellant had threatened the complainant that in case he would not meet his illegal demand, he would be initiating steps for cancellation of his bail. Therefore, it was for the appellant to rebut the presumption that had arisen against him in terms of section 4 of the 13 J&K PC Act”, reads the judgment.
There is nothing in the evidence led by the appellant-Bhushan in defence that would rebut this presumption and defence projected by him in his statement recorded under section 342 Cr.PC has not been established from the evidence on record. Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.
Follow our WhatsApp channel