Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 416 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Jagdish Parsad

2005-03-22

MEHTAB S.GILL, SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is a petition for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 10.6.2004 passed by Special Judge, Faridabad. 2. Learned Counsel for the applicant-appellant has stated that respondent Jagdish Parshad, while posted as Assistant Sub Inspector in Police Post Saran at Faridabad, demanded illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- from complainant Jai Kishan for releasing his scooter on supardari and also for showing favour in a case of rape registered against the son of the complainant. He has further stated that Kuldeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Jitender Singh Dahiya, Sub Divisional Magistrate, who appeared as PW-8 and PW-9, should not have been disbelieved, Kuldeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-8) and Jitender Singh Dahiya (PW-9), both senior gazetted officers, could not have wrongly stated in the Court. Currency notes wrapped in a Baniyan, were handed over to the respondent in front of these witnesses, who were accompanied by shadow witness Satish Kumar. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and perused the judgment of the Special Court. 4. Complainant and the shadow witness have, both, resiled from their statements. The two witnesses left are Kuldeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-8) and Jitender Singh Dahiya, Sub Divisional Magistrate (PW-9). Jitender Singh Dahiya (PW-9) has admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent had met the police party outside the police post. He admitted that the respondent saluted the raiding party before going inside. 5. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the respondent would not have taken the illegal gratification in spite of the knowing that Kuldeep Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW-8) and Jitender Singh Dahiya, Sub Dividional Magistrate (PW-9) were present outside the police post. Complainant-Jai Kishan (PW-1) and shadow witness Satish Kumar (PW-2) have both turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 6. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 10.6.2004 passed by Special Judge, Faridabad. 7. Leave to appeal is declined. 8. Since leave to appeal has been declined, application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation. Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is also dismissed.