12 July 2011
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF MP Vs RAKESH GANDHI

Bench: HARJIT SINGH BEDI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA, , ,
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000022-000022 / 2009
Diary number: 32877 / 2006
Advocates: C. D. SINGH Vs ABHAY KUMAR


1

Crl.A. 22 of 2009 1

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22  OF 2009

STATE OF M.P. ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAKESH GANDHI ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at  

length.

2. The  trial  court  convicted  the  respondent  accused  

for  an  offence  punishable  under  Section  13(2)  of  the  

Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  and  sentenced  him  to  one  

year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of `1,000/- and in  

default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment  

for three months.  The judgment of the trial court has  

been set aside by the High Courtand the accused has been  

acquitted.  The present appeal has been filed by the State  

of M.P. impugning the judgment of acquittal.

3. We have gone through the various reasons that have  

been given by the High Court in arriving at its conclusion  

that the case against the accused had not been proved  

beyond doubt and these have been culled out in paragraph  

16 thereof.  It has been found that the prosecution had

2

Crl.A. 22 of 2009 2

failed to prove that the accused had ever demanded any  

illegal gratification or bribe from the complainant  as he  

was not authorised to issue a No Objection Certificate.  

It  has  also  been  highlighted  that  the  seizure  of  the  

currency notes was not from the possession of the accused  

but from a drawer of the table which had been kept in the  

office concerned and this table was equally available to  

other persons working in the office.  Likewise, it has  

been noted that P.W. 3, the only independent witness, had  

not  supported  the  prosecution  and  had  been  declared  

hostile on that account.   

4. We  have  examined  the  observations  aforesaid  and  

find  that  they  are  borne  out  by  the  evidence.  No  

interference is, therefore, called for in this appeal.  

5. Dismissed.

........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 12, 2011.