AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ACQA No.453 of 2010 State of Chhattisgarh Through Inspector, Special Police Establishment, Office of the Lokayukta, Raipur Division, Raipur (C.G.). ---- Appellant Versus Radheshyam Kori, S/o Shri Prabhudayal Kori, Aged about 42 years, then Sub Engineer, Gramin Yantriki Sewa, Dhamdha, Distt. Durg (C.G.).

---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Appellant : Shri Shakti Singh, P.L.

For Respondent : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Proceedings through Video Conferencing)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment on Board

03.02.2022

1. Appellant/State has assailed the impugned judgment dated

18.08.2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Durg, C.G. in Special Case No.3 of 2001 whereby learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from charges levelled against him under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘P.C. Act’).

2. Shri Shakti Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/

appellant would submit that trial Court erred in acquitting respondent only considering the evidence of PW-7 Vipul Agrawal (complainant) and PW-12 Smt. Radhika Agrawal (mother of complainant) recording that both witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. He Submits that prosecution examined other witnesses including the members of trap team and Investigating Officer. Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt immediately after receiving complaint (Ex.P/2) gave voice recorder to complainant to record conversation of demand between complainant and respondent. Transcript of conversation recorded in voice recorder is placed on record as Ex. P/11 wherein demand of Rs.5,000/- is clearing appearing. On 01.10.2000, police gave Rs.5,000/- to complainant details of which was recorded. He went to house of respondent, handed over Rs.5,000/-, came out of house, gave signal to trap team. Trap team immediately entered into the house, recovered Rs.5,000/- from house of respondent, details of notes recorded by trap team are one and the same of notes which were recovered from house of complainant. He contended that prosecution examined PW-1 O.P. Mishra (independent witness), who was working as Assistant Engineer in Water Resources Department and part of trap team as well as panch witness, and PW-4 R.K. Pathak. It is argued that these witnesses have stated about preparation of trap team at Bhilai Hotel. Except statement that voice in voice recorder played before them was not clear, other evidence of proceedings of trap has been proved. He also referred to statement of PW-16 S.R. Bhagat, Investigating Officer and argued that Investigating Officer in his evidence has proved case against respondent. Independent witnesses including panch witnesses and Investigating Officer, have supported the case of prosecution. Learned Court below ought not to have acquitted respondent from charges only relying upon evidence of complainant Vipul Agrawal (PW-7) and his mother Smt. Radhika Agrawal (PW-12). Referring to Section 20 of P.C. Act, he submitted that when once money handed over to complainant was recovered from house of respondent, there is presumption of involvement of respondent in commission of crime. Prosecution has placed on record voice recorder, its transcript and in furtherance of which, amount of Rs.5,000/- was also recovered from the house of respondent, hence there is ample evidence against respondent to prove his guilt. The order of acquittal passed by Court below is not sustainable. In support of his contention, he places reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 708

3. Per contra, Shri Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for respondent opposing submissions of learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned coun