2025:CGHC:41830 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on: 20.06.2025 Judgment delivered on: 19.08.2025 CRA No. 294 of 2009

1 - Umesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Rajaram Yadav, Aged About 38 Years, Occupation- Service, Upper Division Clerk, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Surakachhaar, Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.).

--- Appellant versus

1 - Union of India Through- The Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur (now Chhattisgarh)

--- Respondent(s)

With CRA No. 293 of 2009

1 - Nityanand Digar, S/o G.B. Digar, Aged About 52 Years, Occupation- Service Clerk, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Surakachhaar, Bankimongra, District- Korba (C.G.).

---Appellant Versus

1 -Union of India Through- The Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur (now Chhattisgarh)

--- Respondent(s)

Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

1. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment, therefore they are heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. Both the appeals under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure have been filed against the the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2009 passed by learned Special Judge, Central Investigation Bureau, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 56/2004 whereby, the trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as under:-

3. According to the prosecution case, complainant Budga, who was terminated from the service, has submitted an application to the Personnel Manager, SECL Sura-kachhar Colliery along with other relevant documents for releasing of his C.M.P.F. amount and when he contacted the appellants and asked them about his application, the appellants demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- for processing his application. The complainant showed his inability to pay the said amount, therefore, they asked the complainant to pay Rs.3,000/- and lastly, the complainant agreed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as bribe to the accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Central Bureau of Investigation and after registration of the complaint, on 08.11.2004, the CBI gave currency to the complainant, organized a trap and thereafter caught the accused persons red handed. Thereafter, FIR was registered against the appellants for the offence under Sections 120B of IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. subsequently, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 120B of IPC and Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to which appellants abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

4. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence.

5. Learned trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.03.2009, finding evidence adduced by the prosecution trustworthy, acquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 120-B of IPC and convicted them under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced them as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is illegal, perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in view of the fact that sanction for prosecution, as required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has not been obtained by the prosecution agency. The complainant has stated in his evidence that the gratification has been kept by the appellant Nityanand, whereas the illegal g