# Ram Murti Sharma & Ors v. VII A.D.J., Faizabad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 1035
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-05
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1003006 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-murti-sharma-ors-v-vii-a-d-j-faizabad-ors-51041
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 323,
504 & 506-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973Sections 200, 202-Challenge to-summoning
order-without recording evidence u/s 200,
202
Cr.PC
learned
magistrate
had
summoned the petitioners to face trial
which is against the mandate of settled law-
At the stage of inquiry under section 202
CrPC accused has no right to intervene and
that it is the duty of the Magistrate while
making an enquiry to elicit all facts not
merely with a view to protect the interests
of an absent accused person, but also with a
view to bring to book a person or persons
against
whom
grave
allegations
are
made.(Para 18 to 23)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Ram Murti Sharma & Ors. Vs. VII A.D.J., Faizabad & Ors.
1035

49. The Registrar (Compliance) is
instructed to dispatch a copy of this order
to
the
Chairman,
Central
Vigilance
Commission, New Delhi, and the Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation, New
Delhi. Their attention is drawn to the
observations outlined in the preceding
paragraph for their necessary action and
consideration.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1035
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1003006 of 2023

Ram Murti Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
VII A.D.J., Faizabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rakesh Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., S.L. Mishra

A. Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 147, 323,
504 & 506-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973Sections 200, 202-Challenge to-summoning
order-without recording evidence u/s 200,
202
Cr.PC
learned
magistrate
had
summoned the petitioners to face trial
which is against the mandate of settled law-
At the stage of inquiry under section 202
CrPC accused has no right to intervene and
that it is the duty of the Magistrate while
making an enquiry to elicit all facts not
merely with a view to protect the interests
of an absent accused person, but also with a
view to bring to book a person or persons
against
whom
grave
allegations
are
made.(Para 18 to 23)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. S.K Sinha C.E.O VS Videocon Internl. Ltd &
ors.(2008) 2 SCC 492

2. Rosy & anr. Vs St. of Ker. & ors.(2000) 2 SCC
230

3. Shivjee Singh Vs Nagendra Tiwary & ors. ,
CRLA No. 1158 of 2010 (SLP (Crl.) No 1416 of
2009)

4. Pakhandu & ors. Vs St. of U.P & ors.(2001)
ALL LJ 2798

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. No one appeared on behalf of
respondent No.3 even in the revised call.

3. Vakalatnama filed today in the
Court by Shri Anand Mani Tripathi,
Advocate on behalf of the petitioners is
taken on record.

4. Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi,
learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Ashok Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A-I for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. This Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
has been filed on behalf of the petitioners
with following main prayers:-

"i) issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
orders dated 15.11.1997 and 05.07.1996
and 23.09.1995 passed by VIIth Additional
District Judge, Faizabad and Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth, Faizabad
contained in Annexure Nos.6 and 4 and 2
respectively to this writ petition.

ii)...

iii)..."
1036 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioner are innocent and
have been falsely implicated in the
present case and were summoned to face
trial by learned court below without
following the due process established by
law and consequential orders were also
passed without considering the evidence
and material on record.

7.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners further submits that initially
the F.I.R. was lodged by respondent No.3
under Sections 147, 323, 504 and 506
I.P.C., which was registered as Case
Crime
No.53/1994,
Police
StaitonRaunahi,
District-Faizabad
(now
Ayodhya), thereafter, the matter was
investigated
thoroughly
and
after
investigation the Investigating Officer did
not find any evidence against the
petitioners and submitted the final report
in the court concerned. He further
submits that thereafter at the time of
acceptance
of
final
report
the
complainant-respondent
No.3
in
the
present case moved an application for
setting aside the final report submitted by
the police in the form of a protest
petition.

8.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners further submits that learned
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faizabad
(now Ayodhya) without considering the
material placed on record and without
recording the evidence under Section 200
and
202
Cr.P.C.
allowed
the
application/protest petition filed by the
respondent
No.3
vide
order
dated
23.09.1995 and summoned the petitioners
to face trial. He further submits that the
summoning order is bad in the eye of law
as no evidence was recorded under
Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., thus, the
procedure established by law was not
followed by the court below while passing
the summoning order.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners
further submits that being aggrieved by the
summoning order dated 23.09.1995, the
petitioners moved an application for setting
aside the summoning order and for
discharging them from the alleged offences,
thereafter, learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate IVth heard the petitioners and
vide order dated 05.07.1996 rejected the
application in a cursory manner without
considering the legal position of the case in
hand.

10. Thereafter, aggrieved by the
order dated 05.07.1996 passed by learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate IVth,
the petitioners preferred a revision before
the
Sessions
Judge,
Faizabad
(now
Ayodhya) under Section 397 Cr.P.C. for
cancellation of the summoning order with
a prayer that the trial court may be
directed to consider the contention of the
petitioners regarding the validity of the
order impugned therein, thereafter, the
revisional court without considering the
case
established
by
the
petitioners
dismissed the revision vide order dated
15.11.1997 and the order is totally non
speaking and has been passed without
application of mind.

11.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners
further
submits
that
the
impugned orders passed by the courts
below are passed in a cursory manner
without considering the legal position and
the mandatory provision of recording the
evidence under Section 200 and 202
Cr.P.C., which has not been followed in the
present case and the petitioners were
directed to face trial.
1 All. Ram Murti Sharma & Ors. Vs. VII A.D.J., Faizabad & Ors.
1037

12. In support of his arguments,
learned Counsel for the petitioners places
reliance on paragraph No.22 of the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer
vs. Videocon International Ltd. and
Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 492.
Paragraph No.22 of the aforesaid judgment
is reproduced hereunder:-

"22. Chapter XV (Sections 200203) relates to Complaints to Magistrates
and
covers
cases
before
actual
commencement of proceedings in a Court
or before a Magistrate. Section 200 of the
Code
requires
a
Magistrate
taking
cognizance of an offence to examine the
complainant and his witnesses on oath.
Section 202 however, enacts that a
Magistrate is not bound to issue process
against the accused as a matter of course.
It enables him before the issue of process
either to inquire into the case himself or
direct an investigation to be made by a
Police Officer or by such other person as
he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding
whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding further. The underlying object
of the inquiry under Section 202 is to
ascertain whether there is prima facie case
against the accused. It thus allows a
Magistrate to form an opinion whether the
process should or should not be issued. The
scope of inquiry under Section 202 is, no
doubt, extremely limited. At that stage,
what a Magistrate is called upon to see is
whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding with the matter and not whether
there is sufficient ground for conviction of
the accused."

13. Further, learned Counsel for the
petitioners places reliance on paragraph
Nos. 10, 11 and 12 of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rosy
and Another vs. State of Kerala and
Others reported in (2000) 2 SCC 230.
Paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the
aforesaid
judgment
is
reproduced
hereunder:-

"10. It is only if the Magistrate
decides to hold the inquiry the proviso to
sub-section (2) of Section 202 would come
into operation. If the offence is triable
exclusively by the court of Sessions, the
Magistrate himself has to hold the inquiry
and no direction for investigation by police
shall then be made. Inquiry can be held for
recording evidence on oath and if he thinks
fit. Sub- section (2) of Section 202 gives
discretion to the Magistrate to record
evidence of witnesses on oath. To this
discretionary power, the proviso carves out
an exception. It provides that for the
offence triable exclusively by the court of
Session the Magistrate shall shall call upon
the complainant to produce all his
witnesses and examine them on oath. Then
the next stage after holding inquiry is
passing of appropriate order of either
dismissal of the complaint or issue of
process. That is provided under Section 203
and 204 of the Code. Hence, on receipt of
the complaint, the Magistrate by following
the procedure prescribed under Section 200
may issue process against the accused or
dismiss
the
complaint.
Section
203
specifically provides that after considering
the statement on oath, if any, of the
complainant and witnesses and the result of
the inquiry or investigation, if any, under
Section 202, the Magistrate is of the
opinion that there is no sufficient ground
for proceeding, he shall dismiss the
complaint. For dismissal of complaint, he
is required to briefly record his reasons for
so doing. In other cases, he has to issue
process i.e. either summons or warrants as
the case may be as provided under Section
1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
204. However, no summons or warrant is to
be issued against the accused until a list of
the prosecution witnessess has been filed.
Therefore, the question of complying with
the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section
202 would arise only in cases where the
Magistrate before taking cognizance of the
case decides to hold the inquiry and
secondly in such inquiry by him, if he
decides to take evidence of witnesses on
oath. But the object and purpose of holding
inquiry or investigation under Section 202
is to find out whether there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused
or not and that holding of inquiry or
investigation is not an indispensable course
before issue of process against the accused
or dismissal of the complaint. It is an
enabling provision to form an opinion as to
whether or not process should be issued
and to remove from his mind any hesitation
that he may have felt upon the mere perusal
of the complaint and the consideration of
the complainant's evidence on oath.

11. In a case, Ranjit Singh v. The
State of Pepsu (now Punjab, AIR (1959) SC
843, where the Sub-Inspector of Police was
convicted under Section 193 IPC by First
Class Magistrate, it was contended that the
procedure adopted by the Magistrate was
erroneous because he did not hold an
enquiry as required under Sections 200 and
202 of the Code. This Court negatived the
said contention and held thus :

"That
contention
is
equally
untenable because under Section 200 proviso
(aa) it is not necessary for a Magistrate when
a complaint is made by a Court to examine
the complainant and neither Section 200 nor
Section 202 requires a preliminary enquiry
before the Magistrate can assume jurisdiction
to
issue
process
against
the
person
complained against."

Further, it is settled law that the
inquiry under Section 202 is of limited
nature. Firstly, to find out whether there
is prima facie case in issuing process
against the person accused of the offence
in the complaint and secondly, to prevent
the issue of process in the complaint
which is either false or vexatious or
intended only to harass such a person. At
that stage, the evidence is not to be
meticulously appreciated, as the limited
purpose being of finding out "whether or
not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused". The standard to
be
adopted
by
the
Magistrate
in
scrutinising the evidence is also not the
same as the one which is to be kept in
view at the stage of framing charges. At
the stage of inquiry under Section 202
Cr.P.C. accused has no right to intervene
and that it is the duty of the Magistrate
while making an enquiry to elicit all facts
not merely with a view to protect the
interests of an absent accused person, but
also with a view to bring to book a
person or persons against whom grave
allegations are made. (Re : Chandra Deo
Singh v. Prakash Chandra Bose & Anr.,
Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulail
Ghadigaonker, Pramatha Nath Talugdar
v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, Nimaljit Singh
Hoon v. The State of W.B. and Mohinder
Singh vs. Gulwant Singh.

12. This Court in Kewal Krishan
v. Suraj Bhan dealt with the case where
instead of finding out prima facie case
made
out
against
the
accused,
the
Magistrate passed an order by meticulously
appreciating the evidence in a case
exclusively triable by a Sessions Court, at
the stage of Sections 203 and 204. The
Court held that the Magistrate committed
an irregularity by exceeding his jurisdiction
and observed thus :
1 All. Ram Murti Sharma & Ors. Vs. VII A.D.J., Faizabad & Ors.
1039

"At the stage of Sections 203 and
204, Criminal Procedure Code in a case
exclusively triable by the Court of Session,
all that the Magistrate has to do is to see
"whether on a cursory perusal of the
complaint and the evidence recorded
during the preliminary inquiry under
Sections 200 and 202. Criminal Procedure
Code, there is prima fade evidence in
support of the charge levelled against the
accused. All that he has to see is whether or
not
there
is
"sufficient
ground
for
proceeding against the accused."

The Court further made it clear
thus :

"At this stage, the Magistrate is
not to weigh the evidence meticulously as
if he were the trial Court. The standard to
be
adopted
by
the
Magistrate
in
scrutinising the evidence is not the same
as the one which is to be kept in view at
the stage of framing charges. The standard
of proof and judgment, which is to be
applied finally before finding the accused
guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be
applied at the stage of framing charges. A
fortiori, at the stage of Sections 202/204,
if there is prima fade evidence in support
of the allegations in the complaint relating
to a case exclusively triable by the Court
of Session, that will be a sufficient ground
for issuing process to the accused and
committing them for trial to the Court of
Session." "

14. Further, learned Counsel for the
petitioners places reliance on paragraph
Nos.12 and 14 of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivjee
Singh vs. Nagendra Tiwary and others
reported in Criminal Appeal No.1158 of
2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1416
of 2009). Paragraph Nos.12 and 14 of the
aforesaid
judgment
is
reproduced
hereunder:-

"12. The use of the word 'shall' in
proviso to Section 202(2) is prima facie
indicative of mandatory character of the
provision contained therein, but a close and
critical analysis thereof along with other
provisions contained in Chapter XV and
Sections 226 and 227 and Section 465
would clearly show that non examination
on oath of any or some of the witnesses
cited by the complainant is, by itself, not
sufficient
to
denude
the
concerned
Magistrate of the jurisdiction to pass an
order for taking cognizance and issue of
process provided he is satisfied that prima
facie case is made out for doing so. Here it
is significant to note that the word 'all'
appearing in proviso to Section 202(2) is
qualified by the word 'his'. This implies that
the complainant is not bound to examine all
the witnesses named in the complaint or
whose names are disclosed in response to
the order passed by the Magistrate. In
other words, only those witnesses are
required to be examined whom the
complainant considers material to make
out a prima facie case for issue of process.
The choice being of the complainant, he
may choose not to examine other witnesses.
Consequence of such non-examination is to
be considered at the trial and not at the
stage
of
issuing
process
when
the
Magistrate is not required to enter into
detailed discussions on the merits or
demerits of the case, that is to say whether
or not the allegations contained in the
complaint, if proved, would ultimately end
in conviction of the accused. He is only to
see whether there exists sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.

14. Although, Shah, J. and
Thomas, J. appear to have expressed
divergent views on the interpretation of
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proviso to Section 202(2) but there is no
discord between them that non examination
of all the witnesses by the complainant
would not vitiate the proceedings. With a
view to clarify legal position on the subject,
we deem it proper to observe that even
though in terms of the proviso to Section
202(2), the Magistrate is required to direct
the complainant to produce all his
witnesses and examine them on oath,
failure or inability of the complainant or
omission on his part to examine one or
some of the witnesses cited in the complaint
or
whose
names
are
furnished
in
compliance of the direction issued by the
Magistrate, will not preclude the latter
from taking cognizance and issuing process
or passing committal order if he is satisfied
that there exists sufficient ground for doing
so. Such an order passed by the Magistrate
cannot be nullified only on the ground of
non-compliance of proviso to Section
202(2)."

15. Lastly, learned counsel for the
petitioners places reliance on paragraph
Nos.7 and 10 of the judgment of this Court
in the case of Pakhandu and others vs.
State of U.P. and Others reported in 2001
ALL. L.J. 2798. Paragraph Nos. 7 and 10
of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced
hereunder:-

"7. Chapter XIV of the Code of
Criminal
Procedure
deals
with
the
conditions
requisite
for
initiation
of
proceedings. For the purpose of this case,
we are concerned with Section 190(1)
alone which is reproduced below:

190. Cognizance of offences by
Magistrate :- (1) Subject to the provisions
of this Chapter and Magistrate of the first
class and any Magistrate of the second
class specially empowered in this behalf
under Sub-section (2), may take cognizance
of any offence-

(a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such offence;

(b) upon a police report of such
facts;

(c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon his own knowledge, that such
offence has been committed.

10. The other course open to the
Magistrate is that instead of taking
cognizance,
he
may
send
the
complaint/application
under
Section
156(3), Cr.P.C. for police investigation. If
the course is adopted, the police will have
to investigate the matter as per the
procedure laid down in Section 157
onwards. If upon investigation the police
came to the conclusion that there was no
sufficient evidence or any reasonable
ground
of
suspicion
to
justify
the
forwarding of accused for trial and
submitted final report for dropping the
proceedings, following courses are open to
the Magistrate and he may adopt any one
of them as the facts and circumstances of
the case may require :

(I) He may agreeing with the
conclusions arrived at by the police,
accept
the
report
and
drop
the
proceedings. But before so doing, he shall
give an opportunity of hearing to the
complainant;

(II) He may take cognizance
under Section 190(1)(b) and issue process
straightway to the accused without being
bound
by
the
conclusions
of
the
investigating agency, where he is satisfied
that upon the facts discovered or unearthed
1 All. Ram Murti Sharma & Ors. Vs. VII A.D.J., Faizabad & Ors.
1041
by the police, there is sufficient ground to
proceed;

(III)
he
may
order
further
investigation, if he is satisfied that the
investigation was made in a perfunctory
manner; or

(IV) he may, without issuing
process or dropping the proceedings decide
to take cognizance under Section 190(1)(a)
upon the original complaint or protest
petition treating the same as complaint and
proceed to act under Sections 200 and 202,
Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether
complaint should be dismissed or process
should be issued."

16.

Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that the ratio of laws
laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and this
Court which are cited above are applicable
in the present case also, the entire
proceedings initiated against the petitioners
is liable to be set aside as due process
established by law has not been followed in
the present case while summoning the
petitioners to face trial, therefore, the
summoning order is totally bad in the eye
of law, thus, the impugned orders dated
15.11.1997, 05.07.1996 as well as order
dated 23.09.1995 may be set aside and the
present petition may be allowed.

17. Per contra, learned A.G.A-I
opposed the contentions made by learned
Counsel for the petitioners and submits that
prima facie offence is made out against the
petitioners, the summoning order is legally
correct and no interference by this Court is
required in the present case, thus, he
submits that the present petition may be
dismissed.

18. After considering the arguments
advanced by learned Counsel for the parties
and after going through impugned orders, it
transpires that without recording evidence
under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. learned
Magistrate had summoned the petitioners to
face trial which is against the mandate of
law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgments referred above has observed that
before summoning the accused, it is
mandatory for the magistrate to record
evidence under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C.
In the present case learned Magistrate has
totally failed to appreciate the legal aspect
of the case and revisional court has also
erred to appreciate the legal question
involved in the present case, further learned
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Faizabad
(now Ayodhya) also without considering
the material placed on record and without
recording the evidence under Section 200
and
202
Cr.P.C.
allowed
the
application/protest petition filed by the
respondent
No.3
vide
order
dated
23.09.1995, thus, it transpires that the
courts below have passed the impugned
orders in a cursory manner.

19. It is further observed that the
standard to be adopted by the Magistrate in
scrutinizing the evidence is also not the
same as the one which is to be kept in view
at the stage of framing charges. At the stage
of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C.
accused has no right to intervene and that it
is the duty of the Magistrate while making
an enquiry to elicit all facts not merely with
a view to protect the interests of an absent
accused person, but also with a view to
bring to book a person or persons against
whom grave allegations are made.

20. It is further observed that instead
of finding out prima facie case made out
against the accused, the Magistrate passed
an order by meticulously appreciating the
evidence in a case exclusively triable by a
1042 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sessions Court, at the stage of Sections 203
and 204. The standard of proof and
judgment, which is to be applied finally
before finding the accused guilty or
otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the
stage of framing charges. A fortiori, at the
stage of Sections 202/204.

21. Thus, this Court is satisfied with
the
arguments
advanced
by
learned
Counsel for the petitioners and the
judgments referred above. The impugned
orders dated 15.11.1997, 05.07.1996 and
23.09.1995 were passed ignoring the legal
questions.

22. In view of the discussions and
observations and judgments referred above,
the impugned orders are liable to be set
aside.

23. Accordingly, the orders dated
15.11.1997, 05.07.1996 and 23.09.1995
passed by VIIth Additional District Judge,
Faizabad (now Ayodhya), Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate IVth, Faizabad (now
Ayodhya) and Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Faizabad (now Ayodhya) are set aside and
reversed, in pursuance thereto further
proceedings
are
also
quashed,
consequently, the present petition is hereby
allowed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 1042
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 1553 of 2023

Basant Kumar Bihani ...Appellant
Versus
Union of India ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant:
Pranjal Krishna

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Shiv P. Shukla

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) &
20 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section
65B - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
Sections 154, 234 & 313 - Appellant
challenged conviction under Sections 7 and
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption
Act,
alleging
improper
FIR
registration, inadmissible electronic evidence,
and lack of corroborative evidence for bribe
demand and acceptance. Court held: (1) FIR
registration was valid under Section 154 Cr.P.C.,
as the complaint disclosed a cognizable offence,
requiring no preliminary inquiry (Lalita Kumari
Vs Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1; (2023) 9 SCC
695). (2) Electronic evidence (CDs Q-1, Q-2, Q3, Q-7 and transcripts Q-4, Q-5, Q-6) was
inadmissible due to lack of Section 65B
certificates at the time of filing and belated
submission
after
8-13
years,
violating
mandatory requirements (Anvar P.V. Vs P.K.
Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473; Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar Vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020)
7 SCC 1). (3) No independent witness
corroborated
complainant's
claim
of
bribe
demand
and
acceptance;
her
testimony
contained contradictions, rendering it unreliable
(Neeraj Dutta Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4
SCC 731). (4) Trial court's approach, prioritizing
defense submissions over prosecution's case,
indicated a presumption of guilt, vitiating the
trial (Section 234 Cr.P.C.). (5) Prosecution failed
to prove demand and acceptance of bribe
beyond reasonable doubt, a sine qua non for
conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (B.
Jayaraj Vs St. of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 5; K.
Shanthamma Vs St. of Telangana, (2022) 4 SCC
574). Appeal allowed; conviction set aside;
appellant acquitted. (Paras 18-96)

Appeal Allowed; Conviction Set Aside.

List of Cases cited:

1. Vineet Narain Vs U.O.I., (1998) 1 SCC 226
(Para 15)