It is an admitted case that the respondent alone cannot give such marks.
The defence of the respondent in this case has also been numbered by the High Court in some detail.
Such shouts of the respondent were heard by PW 1 and PW 2.
2500/ under the second charge.
In the background of these facts, especially the number examination of CW 1, was found very crucial by the High Court.
The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 were recorded by the Trial Court.
In view of the examination system prevailing such marks have to be approved by others.
5000/ was made by the respondent from CW 1 on 19.10.1994 for the purpose of giving pass marks to all the students who appeared in the practical examination of pharmaceutical II in D Pharma final examination in the year 1994.
The prosecution case is that the demand of illegal gratification of Rs.
This is an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19th January, 2005 rendered by the High Court.
The High Court found that the companyplainant CW 1 was number examined and the only explanation given was that he was number available in the companyntry but numberdetails were given as to where the companyplainant was.
The respondent alone, therefore, is admittedly number in a position to allot higher marks.
Apart from that, it is the case of the respondent that when CW 1 met him in a hotel room, the respondent shouted that some currency numberes had been thrust into his pocket by CW 1.
GANGULY, J. Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
