2025:CGHC:42683 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.94 of 2010

0.

Judgment reserved on : 23.06.2025 Judgment delivered on : 22.08.2025

1 - Raghvendra Singh Kshatriya, S/o Ramakant Kshatriya, aged about 46 years, Occupation Branch Manager, Bandar Grih Nigam, Charama Digitally (at present suspended), R/o Adarsh Nagar, Kanker, District Kanker signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA (C.G.)

Appellant versus

1 – The State Of C.G. through Special Police Establishment Branch, Commissioner, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.)

Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Anup Majumdar and Mr. Vibhor Goverdhan, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Kanker, District North Bastar (C.G.) in ST No.02/2008, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and RI for 2 years, respectively, and fine of Rs.1000/- - 1000/- with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.04.2006, the complainant Vinod Kumar Sahu, proprietor of Gayatri Traders (Rice Mill), Lakhanpuri, District Kanker along with his companion Santosh Kumar lodged a written report to ACB Office, Branch Jagdalpur alleging that the appellant being junior assistant in S.W.C., Charama has demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe for permitting the rice millers to keep their product in the godown of SWC. On the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the prosecution agency arranged the trap team and after doing formalities, they went to the appellant, where he took Rs.20,000/- (40 note of Rs.500) from the appellant, the colour of which got pink after dipping into sodium corbonate solution . Thereafter, a case was registered against the appellant. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned Trial Court has not properly considered the testimony of PW-8 Gunesh Nayak, who clearly stated that permitting the rice millers to keep their product in the godown of SWC was not under the control of the appellant, as such the allegation against the appellant for demanding illegal gratification is misconceived, but all these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the learned Trial Court and the appellant has wrongly been convicted. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rajesh Gupta vs State Through Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1107, Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1029 and Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi vs The State of A.P., reported in MANU/SC/0603/2024

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per prosecution, accused demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe and also accepted Rs.20,000/- on

04.04.2006 being public servan