2came 3 xxxx webcams vhat Mature free no sign up email sex chat
Signatures of two independent witnesses were also obtained in the label of the bottle pasted on it for the purpose of identification. W.5 thereafter asked the Head Constable to prepare another sodium carbonate solution in another cleanglass in the above said manner. Even after dipping of the left hand fingers of the accused, the colour did not change. They also found the denomination of hundred rupee notes tallied with the entrustment mahazar. W.5 conducted a search in the house of the accused in the presence of the said independent witnesses and seized electricity bills, insurance policy, currency notes of Rs. All the seized items were produced before the court on 19.7.1996 and a requisition was given for sending the bottles containing the hand wash solution of the accused to Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory. (d) Before the Principal Special Court (for CBI Cases) at Madras, on behalf of the prosecution, P. In meantime the decoy approached them for shifting of his telephone from Korattur to Choolai.
The accused admitted to him the receipt of the bribe money. W.5 told him that he was under arrest and asked him to to keep the notes and diary in which it was kept in the stool and also asked him to raise his hands. W.5 directed Kasim, Head Constable to prepare a sodium carbonate solution in a clean glass tumbler using sodium carbonate powder and clean water. The said solution was preserved in a clean glass bottle and it was sealed and marked as A. W.3 and Ananda Pillai verified the number of notes and they found tallied with the numbers mentioned in the entrustment mahazar. W.1 and examined the Forensic Laboratory witnesses and laid the final report against the accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They could not find any fault in my day to day work.
(iii) The report of the Forensic Laboratory falsifies the version of the prosecution with regard to the presence of the Phenolphthalein Powder in the hands of the accused. The first sanction order dated 2.1.1995 was issued by an authority that was not a competent authority to have issued such order under the Rules.
Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. P.1 is invalid, since the same was not given by an authority who has he power to remove the accused from office and also on the fact that the authority being herself stood as a witness for the prosecution. W.5 and that is why both the hands of the accused were caught by the Police constables so that the Phenolphthalein powder can be soiled in the hands of the accused. Thus only the Member of the Telecommunications Commission has the competency to remove a Group B officer from Telecommunication Engineering Service. It is so unfortunate that a perusal of the sanction order given by her would show that there is no date. Relying upon Sub sections (3) and (4) of Section 19 of the Act, Mr. Chandrasekaran, learned Special Public Prosecutor would contend that an error or irregularity in the order of sanction should not be a ground to reverse or alter a judgment of the trial court unless failure of justice has occasioned thereby, of course the explanation (a) to Sub-section (4) includes an error in competency of the authority to grant such sanction. W.1 regarding sanction to prosecute the accused is conceded, the failure of justice occasioned due to the irregular sanction cannot be denied. W.1, sanctioning authority herself was a witness whose statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr. As already noticed, the sanction order is not a mere irregularity, error or omission.
During my discussion with Narashiman on 12.7.1996 I informed him about more than 100 lines were kept pending for want of cable pair and also at present I was busy in clearing the major cable fault. When the cable serves Choolai area became faulty due to electric shock nearly 400 lines became faulty in choolai area.
the said solution was collecte din a clear glass bottle and labelled, sealed and marked as B and signatures of the independent witnesses were also obtained. W.5 instructed the accused to hand over the bribe money kept in the stool to P. 800/= a diary and a paper containing the telephone numbers and advice note numbers. 2) When I met DGM (N/E) at her chamber on 11.7.1996 they asked me to a lot the cable pair for decoy's telephone to be shifted to his new address and also said suitable instruction were already given to Narashiman on 9.7.1996.
When I was testing the lines the decoy came to me and requested to test the telephone at his residence. I refused it an when I started to move out he tried to thrust the money in my right hand in which I had my official diary.
Therefore it shows a great doubt whether the bottles seized and labelled at the time of occurrence were actually sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory or some other bottles were sent. reported in 2002 (II) Current Criminal Reports 169, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as follows: 17.
The court has to believe only one version either the version of the prosecution witnesses or the scientific report. In the present case, the purpose for which the money was demanded as illegal gratification by the appellant, was already served much prior to the alleged demand of Rs.
In this case the sanctioning authority has given sanction without seeing the Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. Ws 3 and 5 even before the Sodium Carbonate Solution test as to the presence of phenolphthalein powder was conducted, both the hands of the accused were caught hold of by the Police and the accused was arrested only subsequently after conducting such test.
This is a fundamental error which invalidates the cognizance as without jurisdiction. From the above decision, it is clear that granting of sanction to prosecute the Government Servants cannot be said to be a mere formality and it must be a conscious act of the sanctioning authority.