VINOD KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 21-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 504 
VINOD KUMAR 
V. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
(Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 2012) 
JANUARY 21, 2015. 
[DIPAK MISRA AND ROHINTON FALi NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7 and 13(2) -
Public servant taking illegal gratification - Public servant-
C octroi inspector accepting bribe - Conviction and sentence 
ulss. 7 and 13(2) on basis of the trap laid, examination and 
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by the courts 
below - On appeal held: On facts, presumption can be drawn 
that the inspector had received or accepted the said currency 
D notes on his own volition -
Testimony of PW6, an 
independent witness and PW-7 show that the prosecution was 
able to prove demand, acceptance fWd recovery of the 
amount - Though PW 7 was cross-examined after 20 months 
which resulted in his pre-varication from the examination-in-
E chief, he was declared hostile and re-examined, reading the 
evidence in entirety, his evidence cannot be brushed aside 
- Thus, order passed by the courts below upheld. 
Criminal trial - Inordinate delay in holding trial in respect 
of serious offences relating to corruption - Adjournments 
F sought by the counsel for cross-examination - Duty of the 
court - Held: Adjournments sought on the drop of a hat by 
the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, is 
contrary to all principles of holding a trial - It is necessary that 
if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination 
G should be completed on the same day - If the examination 
of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned 
to the next day for cross-examination - Cross-examination 
should not be deferred for a long time - Special reasons are 
H 
504 
VINOD KUMAR v. STATE OF PUNJAB 
505 
to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note 
A 
of - If adjournments are granted in this manner it would 
tantamount to violation of rule of law and eventually turn such 
trials to a farce - Trial judges directed to follow the principles 
relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer cross-
examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of B 
the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an 
apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer 
chicanery - Administration of criminal justice - Practice and 
procedure - Adjournments. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. Mere recovery of the tainted money is not 
sufficient to record a conviction unless there is evidence 
that bribe had been demanded or money was paid 
voluntarily as bribe. In the absence of any evidence of D 
demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal 
gratification, recovery would not alone be a ground to 
convict the accused. PW6-clerk supported the recovery 
in entirety. He stood firm and remained unshaken in the 
cross-examination and nothing has been elicited to 
E 
dislodge his testimony. Further, from. the testimony of PW 
7 it is absolutely clear that he supported in entirety about 
the demand, acceptance and recovery of money. PW7 
was examined-in-chief on 30.9.1999 and was cross-
examined on 25.5.2001, almost after 1 year and 8 months. 
F 
The delay in said cross-examination, had given enough 
time for prevarication due to many a reason. A fair trial is 
to be fair both to the defence and the prosecution as well 
as to the victim. An offence registered under the 
Prevention of Corruption Act is to be tried with all 
G 
seriousness. There is failure to appreciate how the trial 
Judge could exhibit such laxity in granting so much time_,,. · 
for cross-examination in a case of this nature. It would 
have been absolutely appropriate on the part of the trial 
Judge to finish the cross-examination on the day the said 
H 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A witness was examined. As is evident, for no reason 
whatsoever it was deferred and the cross-examination 
took place after 20 months. The witness had all the time 
in the world to be gained over. He was declared hostile 
and re-examined. Reading the evidence in entirety, the 
B evidence of PW-7 cannot be brushed aside. However, part 
of his testimony does not commend acceptance in the 
backdrop of entire evidence in examination-in-chief and 
the re-examination. Further, the evidence of PW6 and 
PW7 have got corroboration from PW8. He in all material 
c particulars stated about the recovery and proven the 
necessary documents pertaining to the test carried with 
phenolphthalein

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.