The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the lack of evidence benefiting the accused in the cross-examination can uphold a conviction.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgments & orders dated 23.02.1985 and 01.03.1985 passed by Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.19/1980, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act as follows:- u/s 161 IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment. U/s 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act -

2. One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment thereof, to further undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Mohanlal Son of Sanwal Ram Bola submitted a written complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Sikar that the appellant-Hari Singh was working in the Office of Collector (Relief), Jhunjhunu and he demanded Rs.20/- for the work. During trap proceedings, appellant was caught red handed.

3. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. During pendency of appeal, appellant was died and his legal representatives was allowed to pursue the appeal vide order dated 01.07.2021 and amended cause title was taken on record.

6. In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the case. The accused examined DW1 in his defence. After that, the trial court heard the final arguments before pronouncement of judgment. Trial court recalled the some witnesses and after that, appellant was convicted above mentioned offences. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant and also submitted that trial court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that prosecution witness PW14 V. K. Godika himself recorded the complaint and conducted the trap proceedings and investigated the case almost. So, it clearly reveals that fair investigation was not done because complainant is also Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that complaint was filed on 02.05.79 but FIR was lodged on 09.05.79 and sent to the concerned court on 18.05.79. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that trial court had committed the serious error in summoning the witnesses CW1 to CW5 because after completion of prosecution evidence, prosecution has not submitted any application for summoning of other witnesses but trial court had suo moto acted as a prosecution agency. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that trial court erred in recalling the PW7 Mohanlal Bola which was extensively examined previously. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that Mohanlal Bola in his cross- examination had supported the defence version and admitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.50/- from the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the then Collector Manohar Singh Mogra who was sanctioning authority had not applied his mind while giving sanction for the prosecution because he had put his signature on draft without any change. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that independent witness was not present at the time of trap proceedings. So, order of conviction passed by trial court be set aside.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that complainant as well as other witnesses have fully supported the prosecution story. Dur