VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

936 DECISION - 525
of his official duties made a demand of Rs.1300 from P.W.1 Sangamlal
as an illegal gratification, and taking into account the evidence as is
available on record, appellant No.2 also has played a very significant
role in negotiating on the figure of the amount and further having the
notes exchanged at the dictate of appellant No.1, it cannot thus but
be said that appellant No.2 substantially abetted the crime. The
Supreme Court recorded its agreement in the finding of the High
Court that the appellants are guilty of the offence for which they were
charged and the question of recording a finding of acquittal in the
matter cannot by any stretch be sustained.
The Supreme Court further observed that where in a case
under sec. 13 of the P.C.Act, 1988, the factum of demand by the
accused on earlier day stood proved by evidence and the seizure of
tainted notes on the next day was also proved which completed the
offence, however the factum of demand and payment on that day
was not put to the accused in his examination under sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
and therefore the High Court conducted the additional examination
of the accused so as to rectify the “irregularity” as cropped up and
pointed out by defence, such a course adopted by the High Court
was not illegal as omission to put to the accused the demand next
day cannot be said to be of such a nature which would go to the root
of the matter and was not a defect incurable in nature but a mere
irregularity which the High Court thought it fit to cure.
(Note: The decision of the Bombay High Court in this case
setting aside the acquittal is dealt with under State of Maharashtra
vs. Rambhau Fakira Pannase, 1994 Cri.L.J. BOM 475.)
(525)
(A) Court jurisdiction
(B) Conviction, sentence — direction not to affect service
career, not proper
Appellate court has no jurisdiction to give direction
that conviction and sentence awarded shall not
affect service career of accused.