Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Pradip Kumar Biswas, J.
The State (C.B.I.) - Appellant
Versus
Karan Lal Shaw - Respondent
G. A. No. 21 of 1996
Decided on : April 22, 2002
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 7, 13(1)(D) - APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - CORROBORATION - LOAN THEORY - PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, State of West Bengal, challenged the acquittal of the accused, Karan Lal Shaw, by the trial court in a case under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 100/- from the complainant, Nand Lal Jaiswara, a Gangman in the Eastern Railway, Chitpur, Calcutta, as illegal gratification for settling his dues for the period of his sickness and hospitalization.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was discrepant and contradictory, and the evidence of the complainant, being an accomplice, could not be accepted without sufficient corroboration. The court also noted that the defense witnesses supported the loan theory, as alleged by the accused, that the money taken from the complainant was in connection with the repayment of a loan advanced earlier to him by the accused.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant as alleged? 2. Whether the defense version of repayment of loan was tenable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the evidence of the complainant was not corroborated by any other prosecution witnesses and that there were discrepancies in the evidence regarding the manner and circumstances in which the alleged bribe was given to the accused. 2. The court found that the defense version of repayment of loan was tenable, as it was supported by the evidence of the defense witnesses and the fact that the accused had no authority to deal with the complainant's leave salary bill.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused by the trial court.
The judgment of the Court was as follows:––
This appeal against acquittal has been filed at the instance of the State through Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Establishment Anti Corruption Branch, Calcutta against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.7.95 passed by Sri N. C. Sil, Judge, 24-Parganas, 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Court Case No. 15 of 1993 whereby the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the accused/opposite party of the charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Preventive of Corruption Act, 1983.
2. The short facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be given as under :––
One Sri Nandalal Jaiswara, an employee of Gang No.5 of Eastern Railway, Chitpur, Calcutta made one written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation to the effect that Karan Lal Shaw, Head Clerk of his Office demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.100/- from him for getting his dues on account of leave salary etc.
3. It was further stated that the complainant had been suffering from T.B. and was treated in Railway Hospital and he could not intimate his office about his illness for which he was shown absent. After 7.10.92, he submitted his fit certificate and tried to regularise his leave for which he had been approaching the aforesaid accused for preparation of his bills and payments of his arrears/dues since September, 1992.
4. But the accused Karan Lal Shaw demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- to be paid to him on 22.2.93 at 2 p.m. as otherwise the case of the complainant would be spoiled.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, C.B.I registered a case as R.C. Case No. 8/93-Calcutta dated 22.2.93 against the aforesaid accused person.
6. The trap was laid on 22.2.93 at the office of the complainant in the presence of two independent witnesses after observing all necessary formalities of demonstration for reaction of phenalphthalein power with the solution of sodium carbonate. The conversation of the accused with the complainant in the office was heard by the independent witnesses and the transaction of giving and accepting the bribe was seen by them.
7. The aforesaid accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 100/- which was recovered from his exclusive possession.
8. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned Trial Judge in course of Trial framed charge under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the aforesaid accused when he pleaded not guilty and claimed be tried.
9. The defence case, as it appears, is a total denial and it was alleged on behalf of the accused that he accepted Rs. 100/- from the complainant on that date as repayment of the instalments of loan.
10. In course of trial as many as nine(9) witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution to bring home the charge against the aforesaid accused person and from the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined and the learned Trial Judge after examining the aforesaid witnesses, and after hearing all the arguments of the parties, acquitted the aforesaid accused person of the aforesaid charges.
11. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of acquittal, the present appeal has been preferred by the State through C.B.I. alleging that the impugned order of acquittal is bad in law both on facts and law and the learned Trial Judge has based his judgment on surmises and inferences drawn from personal guesses and assumptions and not on the available materials on record.
12. It has further been alleged that there has been mis-appreciation of evidence on record and as such the impugned judgment and order of acquittal being perverse the same has resulted in failure and gross miscarriage of Justice. Hence, this appeal.
13. I have heard the learned Cou
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
