Judgment :

Instant criminal appeal is directed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 18-12-2015 rendered by the court of Ld. Special Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu in file No. 222/Challan titled State through Police Station Vigilance Organization Jammu Vs. Mangat Ram Sharma, whereby, appellant has been tried, held guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo one (1) year imprisonment for commission of offence u/s 161 RPC and one (1) year imprisonment for commission of offence u/s 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2) P.C. Act.

2. Aggrieved of and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order dated 18-12-2015, appellant/convict has questioned it’s legality, propriety and correctness and has sought it’s quashment/setting aside on the following grounds:—

(i) that on account of a false complaint lodged by complainant Ajay Kumar Badyal, FIR bearing No. 15/2007 came to be registered against appellant for commission of offences u/s 5(1) (d) r/w Section 5(2) P.C. Act and finally after conclusion of the investigation chargesheet came to be presented before the court of Ld. Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu on 09- 09-2008;

(ii) that the charges were framed against the appellant by the trial court on 02-02-2009 to which appellant denied and accordingly he was tried by the court below for the commission of aforesaid offences, and after conclusion of the trial, Ld. Special Judge Anti-Corruption Jammu through the medium of impugned judgment dated 18-12-2015 convicted the appellant for commission of offences u/s 161 RPC r/w sections 5(1) (d) r/w 5(2) of P.C. Act and sentenced the appellant separately for one year’s imprisonment for commission of the offences which were directed to be run concurrently;

(iii) that the impugned judgment is against facts and law, in as much as, prosecution has failed to establish that appellant/convict ever demanded the bribe amount or accepted the same and in the absence of establishing the aforesaid two elements by the prosecution during the trial, court below was not justified in recording the finding of conviction against the appellant;

(iv) that the impugned judgment requires to be set aside on the grounds, that the court below convicted the appellant without their being any evidence connecting the appellant with the commission of offence, court below did not appreciate the evidence in it’s true prospective and failed to consider the aspect of the matter that complainant namely Ajay Kumar Badyal in his statement in the court has categorically stated that it was Patwari Deep Raj who had demanded bribe amount and to whom the same was paid and similar is the statement of independent witness namely Kulraj Singh, yet the court below did not assign any reason muchless a cogent reason to discard their statements;

(v) that the impugned judgment suffers from inherent contradictions, in as much as, statement of none of the prosecution witnesses was supported by other prosecution witnesses, yet the court below has recorded the finding of conviction against appellant;

(vi) that the finding recorded by the trial court in para 20 of the judgment at page 21 is to the effect, “the accused leaves the room and sometime after he comes back and the tainted notes were passed on to him on his demand”, the said statement has been attributed by the court below to the complainant which statement was never made by the complainant.

3. Respondent has contested the appeal by filing objections and contending therein, that appellant has been convicted u/ss 5(1) (d) r/w 5(2) of P.C. Act r/w 161 RPC after full trial, whereby, appellant has been given full opportunity to participate and contest the prosecution. It is contended, that the Ld. Trial Judge has found appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced him accordingly, therefore, appellant cannot say that judgment is not sustainable, the appeal filed by the ap