LexPHULA SINGH versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 551 PHULA SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 2271 of 2011) MARCH 3, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: A B ss. 7 and 13(2) -- Demand and acceptance of illegal c gratification -- Trap laid --Appellant caught red handed -- Acquittal by trial court -- Conviction by High Court and sentence of one year imprisonment with fine - Held: Appellant has not denied his visit to house of complainant nor has he furnished any explanation in respect of recovery of chemically 0 treated currency notes from his pocket and the test of his fingers being positive --There is no perversity in the judgment of High Court. CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: s.313-Power to examine accused -- Held: Accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statem~n~ uls 313 regarding any incriminating material that has been produced- · against him, failing which court would be entitled to draw an E adverse inference against him. F APPEAL Appeal against acquittal -- Power of appellate court -- Held: In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and judgment under appeal is found to be G perverse, appellate court can interfere witn the order of acquittal. The appellant a Kanungo, was prosecuted for 551 H 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 3 S.C.R. A committing offences punishable u/ss 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as he was caught red handed in a trap laid at the instance of the complainant. The trial court acquitted him, but the High Court convicted him of the offences charged and sentenced him to one B year RI with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. regarding any C incriminating material that has been produced against him. If he chooses to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial, the court would be entitled to draw an adverse inference against him as may be permissible under the law. In the instant case, the appellant could not o have maintained complete silence particularly, with regard to his visit to the house of the complainant, his fingers test being positive and recovery of chemically treated currency notes of Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of his pant. [para 6, 8 and 9] [555-G-H; 556-E-F, G-H] E F Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2012 (3) SCR 630 =AIR 2012 SC 1357; Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, 2012 (9) SCR 193 =AIR 2013 SC 912; and Raj Kumar Singh alias Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2013 SC 3150 - relied on. 2. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances and judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. In the instant case, it cannot be said that it was G not a fit case where the High Court ought to have reversed the judgment of acquittal. There is no perversity in the judgment of the High Court. [para 9-11) [557-A-C, D] Case Law Reference: H 2012 (3) SCR 630 relied on para 8 PHULA SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH 553 2012 (9) SCR 193 AIR 2013 SC 3150 • relied on relied on para 8 para 8 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 2271 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.08.2011/07.09.2011 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 2009. Dinesh Kumar Garg, M.S. Bakshi, L.S. Bakshi for the A B Appellant. C Promila for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. I. This appeal has been preferred D against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.8.2011/ 7.9.2011, passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.358 of 2009 reversing the judgment and order dated 19.2.2009, passed by Ld. Special' Judge, Hamirpur in Corruption Case No.1 of 2008 acquitting E the appellant from the Charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of.Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court has awarded the appellant sentence of one year RI and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of six F months. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: A. That on 20.6.2007, the appellant was working as Kanungo of the particular area and one Vakil Chand filed a G complaint against the father of the complainant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.