JUDGMENT (ORAL)

S.L. Kochar, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 30.7.1997 passed in Special Criminal Case No.2/96 by Special Judge and 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Shajapur (M.P.), whereby convicted the appellant under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to RI for one year with fine of Rs. 2,000, in default of payment of fine amount he shall suffer additional RI for four months.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as unfolded before the Trial Court is that on 13.8.1990 in the morning at 10.15 a.m. complainant Station House Officer of police Station Kanad, District Shajapur, Shri Upendra Singh Bhati, was sitting in his chamber of police Station, Kanad. The appellant Ghisalal reached in the chamber of Shri Bhati and disclosed his identity that he was a liquor contractor and wanted to give Rs. 500 to Mr. Bhati. Mr. Bhati refused to take the amount, on which appellant made a proposal for taking some more money and took out an envelope from his pocket and placed the same before him. At that time, witness Maganlal and Sewaram, along with Head Constable Ratanlal, Shivnarayan and Constable Mohammad Amin, Shankarlal and Harishankar, were also present. It is further said that Mr. Bhati, immediately, in presence of the witnesses, prepared the seizure memo Ex. P1 of Rs. 500, which was placed before him by the appellant to permit him to do illegality and irregularities in liquor business. Mr. Bhati registered the First Information Report Ex. P2 for commission of offence under Section 162 of the Indian Penal Code and referred the matter for investigation to S.D.O.P. S.D.O.P. Shri Suraj Prakash Sharma arrested the appellant through arrest memo Ex. P3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of offence under Section 165A of the I.P.C.

3. The appellant refuted the charges and examined himself as witness in defence as per provision under Section 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His case was that he was serving as a salesman under liquor contractor Prithviraj Jaiswal. Mr. U.S. Bhati joined as Station House Officer of P.S. Kanad before 8 to 10 days of the incident. He had not done any kind of checking in the liquor shop and on the date of incident he was called by Mr. Bhati for monthly payment and before going to police station, he had a talk on telephone with his master, who directed him to give Rs.500 to Mr. Bhati and he went to police station to give that amount but Mr. Bhati demanded Rs.l,000 on which he told him that he may talk with the contractor. Thereafter, he returned back without giving the money to him and after 15-20 minutes, again he was called through a police Constable in the police station and a false case has been concocted by Mr. Bhati against him. The learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It appears that Mr. Bhati as well as S.D.O.P. Suraj Prakash Sharma were not knowing that offences from Sections 161 to 165A, were repealed by the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988 Section 31). The learned Trial Court after examining the witnesses of both the parties and hearing them convicted the appellant as described hereinabove.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record carefully, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.

5. PW1 complainant U.S. Bhati has deposed that on 13.8.1990, he was serving as Station House Officer of Police Station Kanad and was in his chamber at 10.45 a.m. Appellant came inside his chamber and gave him an envelope he also requested him to permit to sell the liquor in villages, which could not be sold except from the shop as per terms and conditions of the contract. Further say of this witness is that he had twice or thrice caught the appellant while selling liquor in prohibited area and