JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam/appellant. Also heard Mr. P. M. Dastidar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused.

2. The present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is preferred by the State of Assam against the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati in Special Case No. 3/2005, whereby the respondent/accused was acquitted from the charge under Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The prosecution case was launched on the basis of an ejahar dated 15.10.1997 filed by the PW-1 (Dambaru Konwar) inter alia alleging that on 15.10.1997, the accused/respondent demanded bribe of Rs. 3000/-from him for converting his post from plan post to non-plan post. Accordingly, the informant/PW-1 handed over Rs.3000/-containing signatures of the SDO, Civil, Margherita Sub-Division to the accused for that purpose. The accused person accepted the bribe.

4. On the basis of the said ejahar, the Margherita Police Station registered a case being Margherita P.S. Case No. 142/97 and took up the investigation. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer laid the charge sheet under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 against the respondent/accused.

5. On the appearance of the accused and so also hearing of the learned counsel of both the parties, the learned committal Court committed the matter to the Court of learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati. Charges were framed on 19.06.2006 against the respondent/accused and was read over and explained to the accused/respondent to which he pleaded not to be guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the trial was commenced.

6. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 11 (eleven) witnesses and one defence witness has been adduced on behalf of the accused/respondent. Two persons were also examined as the Court Witnesses. The statement of the accused/respondent was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

7. Thereafter, the learned trial Court below acquitted the present accused/respondent from the charge under Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under its Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2009. Assailing such judgment and order, the present criminal appeal is filed by the State.

8. The learned trial Court below acquitted the present respondent/accused basically on two counts, firstly, that the sanction order granted by the employer was defective and secondly, that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/respondent demanded bribe and same was given as per demand by the informant i.e. PW-1.

9. The learned trial Court below has came to a conclusion that the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused/respondent was not proved. It was further findings of the learned trial Court below that the tainted money which had allegedly been signed by PW-11, even was not exhibited nor the alleged signature put by the PW-11 in the tainted money, were proved. Therefore, according to the learned Court below the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand of bribe and the same demand was made through the trap and recovery was made.

10. Law is by now well settled that more particularly the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umedbhai Jadavbhai–Vs-State of Gujarat reported in 1978 1 SCC 288 held that once an appeal against acquittal is entertained, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the entire evidence independently and come to its own conclusion.

11. Law is equally well settled that while doing so, the appellate Court is to give due importance to the decision arrived at by the learned trial Court below after proper appreciation of evidence.

12. In the case of Guru Dutta Pathak–Vs-State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2021 6 SCC 166, the Hon’ble Apex Court after elaborately discussing different earlier decisions