The competency of an accomplice as a witness, the need for corroborative evidence, and the court's discretion in imposing a lenient view for delay in the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above titled acquittal appeal has been filed by the Appellant-State against the judgment dated 29.01.2010 (‘impugned judgment’), passed by learned Special Judge Anti Corruption Jammu (‘Trial Court’) by virtue of which the respondent had been acquitted from the charge of the offences under Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and Section 161 RPC, in a case arising out of FIR No.57/1998, registered at Police Station Vigilance Organization (now ACB) Jammu.

2. The impugned judgment has been assailed on the following grounds :

“(a) That order/judgment impugned in appeal is against the law and facts of the case, as such, is required to be set aside;

(b) That the learned Trial Judge has mis-appreciated the evidence and misconstrued the law attracted to the facts of the present case, as such the judgment impugned is liable to be set aside on this score also;

(c) That the learned Trial Judge by ordering acquittal of the accused (Respondent) has committed grave error in law, which has resulted in passing of the impugned judgment; and

(d) That the prosecution has successfully proved the allegations leveled against the accused/respondent but even then the learned Judge has ordered his acquittal.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that vide impugned judgment 29.01.2010, the trial Court had misdirected itself, both on facts and law, as the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in its right perspective ignoring the material and essential evidence led by the prosecution to unfold its case which has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. It has been further argued that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts; the evidence has been mis-appreciated and law has been misconstrued; that it has been erred in holding the complainant as an accomplice as there was cogent and tangible evidence brought on record by the prosecution to prove that the accused had created such circumstances which compelled the complainant to pay bribe to him and there was no evidence in defence suggesting that the complainant at any point of time volunteered himself to pay bribe to the accused as wrongly held by the Court below; that the testimony of the complainant has been fully corroborated in material particulars by supportive evidence, led by the prosecution and the evidence in all possibility, foisted the criminal misconduct punishable under Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act; that the Trial Court had not appreciated the prosecution evidence just on presumptions, conjectures and insignificant discrepancies against the settled position of law that minor discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses are bound to agree with the passage of time and such discrepancies should not come in the way of conviction of the accused if the charge against the accused is otherwise proved and this principle of law has been ignored by the Court below; that the prosecution by leading cogent evidence has proved that the accused has demanded bribe of Rs.22,000/- from the complainant to secure a job for him as the statement of PWs namely, Yaar Mohammad, Mushtaq Ahmed and Mohammad Younas clearly pinpoint the guilty of the accused; that the Trial Court has observed that the gratification of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,000/- was made on the same day, thus, payment and acceptance of bribe was proved against the accused but still has given the benefit of doubt to the accused that there was no recovery of money overlooking this aspect that the prosecution story was not based on a trap case; that the Trial Court has also wrongly shown PW Mushtaq Ahmed a planted witness based on wrong facts, though he was a natural witness to the illegal acts of the accused; that the Trial Court had disputed the place of payment of bribe without any cogent reason concluding that the accused cannot dare, accept bribe in his office when other places were available.

4. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG further argu