LAW FOR ALL

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) -Bribe giving - Registration and Investigation by ASI/SHO in part and later part by Dy. S.P. - not fatal to the prosecution - Giving Bribe to the complainant to do a favour in getting supply orders of Double Deck Beds to Hostels - Trial court acquitted the accused - High court convicted the accused - Apex court held that It is evident that PW-7 Prem Chand who was posted as ASI/IO in the Bharmour Police Station requested the SHO at Chamba to depute a gazette officer to investigate the matter. Even if the part of investigation had been carried out by PW-7, it cannot be said to be illegal. Nothing has been said from the side of the defence that serious prejudice was caused to the accused by reason of the investigation carried out. The High Court rightly pointed out that Bharmour being a tribal area, there is a single line administration and lot of power is vested with the Resident Commissioner since the heads of various departments or competent authorities are not available in Bharmour, and at that time the ADM-complainant was also the Resident Commissioner, Bharmour.we are fully in agreement that the prosecution has proved charges made against the appellant. The provisions of law considered by the High Court ought to have been followed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court decided the matter as if the offence has been committed by the appellant under the provisions of penal code. The Trial Court has not considered the gravity of the offence as contemplated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(s) 1564 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6386 of 2012) Narinder Singh ………Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……..Respondent = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41791