Several cases gets decided every year.
What has emerged from case citation [2016] GCtR 2578 was that the person who was facing allegations under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was acquitted. Few things needs to be noted : -
Trial Court had convicted accused after trial and accused was sentenced to imprisonment.
In this case, accused was also arrested. Multiple witnesses were examined by prosecution. During appeal, it was argued by accused that the case of prosecution is not proved and said that the accused deserves to be acquitted. The question regarding credibility of prosecution version was also raised.
Another argument of accused was that the order of conviction is not in accordance with law. Prosecution, however, during appeal argued that the order of conviction is justified. The motives against the accused were noted.
During appeal, the effect of nature of witnesses were seen and what will be the effect if certain witnesses are absent from proceedings.
Often, there are omissions in making certain persons as witnesses and that point was also duly taken note of in acquitting the accused. There can be many witnesses in offences under PC Act, 1988 but what kind of witnesses' statements may not carry much gravitas is also clear from [2016] GCtR 2578.
What kind of witnesses are vital in cases under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is highlighted. What also emerges is that even though some arguments of accused can be rejected, but that would not mean that order of conviction under PC Act, 1988 can be sustained. The next thing which was discussed is the Order of the conviction and the points which were noted by the Trial Court. The evidence of the witnesses were also discussed during the appeal. The versions made during cross-examination were discussed. The statements made by one of witness in examination - in - chief also caught attention in the appeal where accused was finally acquitted.
How some presumptions can be drawn in cases of PC Act, 1988 is another learning lesson from [2016] GCtR 2578.
Laying down important principles of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 while acquitting accused, how the conclusions of the Trial Judge were made was rightly pointed out. What was brought forth is how one of the witness gave statements regarding some of the items found during alleged offence which were tallied.
The ultimate conclusion is that even if the version of the accused may not be believed, but that would not mean that such accused can be convicted for offences under PC Act, 1988.
After discussing various aspects of the matter, it was lastly concluded that the accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Written by
Vishal
Delhi
Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction.