2came 3 xxxx webcams vhat Adult iphone chat hot
W.2 not to touch the notes till demanded by the accused. W.2, complainant and to inform the trap members regarding the acceptance of bribe money by the accused. W.5 also directed the other trap team members and other independent witness to be with him in the bed room o the complainant and to wait for the signal from P. The trap members carried suit case containing the sodium carbonate powder, stationery items, sealing wax, metal seal, candle, glass tumblers, etc., They left a bottle containing Phenolphthalein powder at the office itself. W.3 left to the trap place and later the other trap team members left the office by 4.30 and reached the residence of the complainant by 5.30 pm., They took position in the bed room and waited for the pre arranged signal. Then the accused gave him the new telephone number and then he demanded the bribe amount. W.2, complainant took out the currency notes from the pocket and counted them and handed over the notes to him. W.2 to his residence and asked him to over hear the conversation and see that the transaction is taking place between the accused and P. he also directed him to come to come to the bedroom of the P.Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. 500/=, in default to undergo 2 months imprisonment and under Section 13(2) red with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to under go one year imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. On the same day the accused came with three other persons and gave telephone connection in his house and asked P. Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals as to how arrest should be made. ARREST HOW MADE:-- (1) In making an arrest the Police Officer or other person making the same shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action. C., does not say that the Police who arrest the accused must catch hold of the hands of the accused.Become a Premium Member for free for three months and pay only if you like it. 1000/= in default to undergo three months imprisonment and both sentences to run concurrently, the sole accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The accused Sivanandam was working as a Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) in BSNL. W.2 who was earlier residing at Mariamman Kovil Street, Korattur, Madras-80, shifted his residence to No. He wanted to shift his Telephone functioning at the previous residence to his new place of residence and therefore he gave an application Ex. Since the telephone was not shifted till 5.7.1996 on 9.7.1996 P. W.2 went to the Office and met one Narasimman who told that it the the accused Sivanandam is the concerned JTO and he asked him to meet him in the next morning. (2) If such person forcibly resists the endeavour to arrest him, or attempts to evade the arrest, such Police officer or other person may use all means necessary to effect the arrest. It is enough if they simply touch the body and inform the arrest.W.1 and requested her to give connection to his telephone and in his presence she talked with some officers over phone and gave instructions. Accordingly on 16.7.1996 he went to the office and met the accused. 1500/= to shift the telephone to the new residence. (3) Nothing in this section gives a right to cause the death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for life. Therefore, at this juncture it is not clear what is the necessity for the police officers to catch hold of both the hands of the accused even before conducting the Sodium Carbonate Solution test. If the said report has been taken note of, the major contradiction in the report and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses could have been considered and any officer would have hesitated to grant sanction. Even for arrest, under Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the hands need not be caught hold of.Therefore the bottle labelled as "B" was containing the colourless liquid.
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.
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.
Therefore, when the Special Judge took cognizance on 29.5.1995, there was no sanction order under the law authorising him to take cognizance.
The second sanction order dated 7.9.1997 was also issued by an authority, which was not competent to issue the same under the relevant rules, apart from the fact that the same was issued retrospectively w.e.f. The congnizance was taken by the Special Judge on 29.5.195.