State of M. P. vs Vishnudayal - 1998 Supreme(MP) 1024

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the State : A. Saleem
For the Respondent: H.S. Obero

Headnote:(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.378 – appeal against acquittal – possible view taken – judgment also not suffering from perversity – no interference can be made.
       (2) Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 – S.5(1)(d) r/w 5/2 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S.161 – offence under – demand of bribe not established – no offence proved.
        Short Note
       This appeal, under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been, preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, against the judgment and order of acquittal dt.12.3.1988, of the Court of Special Judge, Dewas, passed in Special Case No.4 of 1984, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him under Sec.5(1)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code now omitted under Sec.31 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No.. 49 of 1988).
       2. The respondent/accused had abjured his guilt. In his defence he had submitted, that he was beaten by the Raiding – party, which is manifest from the medical report of the doctor, who was examined by the prosecution as well as by the defence.
       3. On appreciation of the evidence led before the trial Court and on security of the material available with the trial Court, it has acquitted the respondent/accused mainly on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against the respondent.
       4. State has now approached this Court against the said judgment and order of acquittal.
       5. Shri A. Saleem, appearing for appellant/State has straneously argued that there was sufficient material available before the trial Court to hold the respondent guilty of commissioning of the charge. He further submitted, that prosecution had proved the charge against the respondent beyond any shadow of doubt and no case for acquittal was made out.
       6. On the other hand, Shri H.S. Oberoi, appearing for respondent has submitted, that it has not been proved by the prosecution that any demand of money was made by the respondent, or, the amount of Rs. 100/ – was paid to the respondent as bribe, which, he had accepted. My attention has also been drawn to para – 18 of the impugned judgment, in which, it has been held that it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of complainant Madhava in view of the various reports lodged by respondent against the complainant from time to time.
       7. Shri Oberoi submitted, that complainant was used to bring his Goats for grazing in the Government land and the respondent has lodged several reports with the police against the complainant in this regard. He has submitted, that on account of this enmity the respondent has been falsely implicated in this case. He has also submitted, that one of the star witness of the prosecution, who had accompanied the raiding party, namely, PW 2 – Nannekhan has also not supported the prosecution story. His evidence has been found to be untrustworthy by the trial Court.
       8. Lastly, he has submitted, that in any case, there is no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which, calls for no interference.
       9. After going through the record and after giving my anxios consideration to the whole matter, I find, that no case is made out for any interference. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond shadow of doubt, that any bribe was demanded by the respondent, or, the same was accepted by the respondent. Thus, the very basis on which the respondent was charged and prosecuted, stands completely demolished. Even, otherwise, the learned counsel for appellant/State has failed to show that the judgment suffers from any perversity. No other view is possible on the material available on record.
       10. Thus, I find, that there is no merit and substance in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed. The bail bond filed by respondent shall stand discharged.