The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher than in departmental inquiries, and exoneration in the latter does not necessarily preclude criminal prosecution unless it is on merit.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant being a CBI (Anti Corruption Branch) filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 18/4/2011 in Spl.CC.No.165/2010 on the file of XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru, wherein the respondents have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 120 (B) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and also under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'P.C Act') r/w 120(B) of IPC.

2. The rank of the parties, henceforth will be referred as per their rankings in the Trial Court for convenience.

Brief facts of the case:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector, Railway Protection Force (RPF), Maddur Outpost. He stated to have registered RPUP Crime No.1/2010 on 15/1/2010 against Chand Pasha who was doing business of old paper and scrap items. It is further stated that the shop of PW.5 / the complainant herein was situated adjacent to the shop of Chand Pasha. PW.5 was told that he would also be arraigned as accused in the same crime number. Being afraid of the said information, he approached accused No.2 who was the informer of the accused No.1. Both PWs.5 and accused No.2 said to have approached accused No.1 and it is said that the accused No.1 had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50, 000.00 to set him free in Crime No.1 of 2010. The amount has been scaled down to a sum of Rs.30, 000.00. PW.2 having not interested in making payment of illegal gratification, approached CBIrespondent and lodged a complaint. A plan of trap has made, accordingly, PW.5 had been instructed to approach accused No.2. PW.5 approached accused No.2 and handed over Rs.30, 000.00 to him as illegal gratification.

4. The accused No.2 was apprehended at Ramanagara and on enquiry, the accused No.2 has said that the accused No.2 was in Bengaluru and the same had to be reached to him. On receiving the said information, accused No.2 was asked to sit in the car and also asked to make call to accused No.1. Accordingly, he called accused No.1 over his phone and asked the accused No.1 to come near Majestic bus stop. It is further stated in the complaint that the accused No.1 was waiting in the Majestic bus stop for accused No.2, once the accused No.2 reached the Majestic bus stop has approached the accused No.1 and handed over the amount. Immediately, the accused No.1 was apprehended by the respondent -CBI and conducted the further proceedings and submitted the charge sheet.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the case examined in all 9 witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 and got marked 13 documents as Exs.P1 to P13 and also identified 14 material objects as MO.s.1 to 14. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record acquitted the respondents herein. Being aggrieved by the said acquittal, CBI/appellant preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Sri.Nithin Gowda K.C, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Chandrashekara.K, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Rajendra Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Sri.Nithin Gowda K.C, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court appears to be erroneous not only on the facts but also on the law. Therefore, the same is required to be set aside.

8. It is further submitted that merely because the respondents are exonerated from the departmental enquiry may not take away the case of the appellant. The CBI/prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and it was established that accused No.2 had received the amount from PW.5 and PW.5 along with other officials including accused No.2 proceeded to Bengaluru and the accused No.2 instructed accused No.1 to come near Majestic bus stand. Accordingly, accused No.1 was w