The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the requirement of proof of demand for establishing acceptance of illegal gratification, and the reluctance to interfere with the judgment of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons.

ORDER :

1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State against the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2005 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 17/2002 whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 7 & 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Brief facts of the case are that at the time of incident i.e. on 19.12.2001, respondent was posted as Patwari, Patwari Halka No. 2/47 in Village- Rawa, Tehsil & District- Dhamtari (C.G.). Being a public servant, he demanded a sum of Rs.5000/- from the complainant for mutation of his land, thereafter, complainant filed complaint against the respondent before Lokayukta, Raipur, C.G. On the basis of said complaint, Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Raipur constituted a trap team and after preliminary proceeding, trap team went with the complainant. Complainant gave a sum of Rs.5000/- to respondent and trap team caught him red-handed. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent and charges were framed as mentioned above.

3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Respondent/accused has also examined 5 witnesses in his defence and filed D1-D3 documents.

4. After appreciating oral and documentary evidence, trial court has acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 7 & 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant/State.

5. Shri Ali Asgar, Deputy Advocate General would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in not assessing the prosecution story. In this case, respondent/accused was caught red-handed but the learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact and passed erroneous judgment. Learned trial Court has erred in disbelieving the punch witnesses who were responsible officers and narrated according to the prosecution allegations of demand of illegal gratification. Punch witnesses are independent witnesses who have got no interest of prosecution of defence and they were not biased against the complainant or the accused/respondent but the learned trial Court did not believe the prosecution witnesses. The defence witnesses are interested witnesses and there were material omissions and contradictions in their statements but the learned trial Court believing in such defence witnesses acquitted the respondent. Learned trial Court on minor omissions and contradictions has passed the judgment of acquittal which are against the law as well as the facts of the case, therefore, judgment passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. Harshwardhan Parghania, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid charges, as there is no evidence available on record which can prove the guilt of the accused/respondent. In corruption cases, prosecution is duty bound to prove demand of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, but in this case, prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of V. Sejappa v. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga passed in (2016) 12 SCC 150, B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. passed in (2014) 13 SCC 55 & N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu passed in (2021) 3 SCC 687: 2021 SCC Online SC 53.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. Before the learned t