[2025:RJ-JD:32987]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 731/2004 State of Rajasthan ----Appellant Versus Ahivaranlal Jatav S/o Nanheram Jatav, R/o Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh the then Lower Division Clerk, Sub Division, RSEB, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

Order Reserved on : 25/07/2025 Date of pronouncement: 31/07/2025 The present appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment dated 26.03.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act), Udaipur (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'learned trial Court') in Special Case No. 16/2001 whereby, he acquitted the respondent from offence under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with

13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Succinctly stated, the facts apposite are that on

27.3.2000, the complainant Hem Raj Suthar presented presented a written report in the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Kota stating therein that he had taken electric connection in his rented shop. Later on, he got constructed his own shop and applied for shifting the connection to said shop, but the clerk Ahivaranlal of Electricity Department is demanding Dressing Table in respect of shifting the connection or a sum of Rs. 1000/-. On this report, trap proceedings were conducted and accused was caught with illegal gratification of Rs.900/- from the drawer of table. After completing all formalities, a case was registered at Jaipur bearing Case No. 100/2000 and after investigation and obtaining necessary sanction, chargesheet was filed in the court. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed against the respondent.

The prosecution in support of its examined as many as

9 prosecution witnesses and exhibited relevant documents. Accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C who examined witnesses DW/1 to DW/5 in his defence.

After conclusion of the evidence, learned trial Court heard final arguments and acquitted the respondent from the charges levelled against him.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitted the respondent from the offences. It is argued that there is transcript available between the accused and complainant, in which the accused has been repeatedly demanding dressing table from the complainant. The bribe money agreed upon in the sum of Rs.900/- was also recovered from the drawer of the table of respondent who was working as Clerk in the RSEB. Thus, the demand and acceptance is duly proved in this case, however, the learned trial court mechanically acquitted the respondent on the basis of minor contradictions. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court may be quashed and set aside.

Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel for the respondent strenuously urged that the learned trial Court has appreciated and scrutinized the evidence available on record in correct perspective. Learned counsel contended that the independent witnesses PW/1 Brahmanand Gupta and PW/2 D.R. Kshatriya did not support the prosecution story and both these witnesses have been declared hostile. He further submits that although prosecution sanction has been issued in this case but the sanctioning authority has not been examined, therefore, same has no sanctity. It is argued that no work was pending as on the date of the trap proceedings and the alleged illegal gratification has also not been recovered from the conscious possession of the respondent but it has been recovered from the drawer of the table of respondent. There are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecutions witnesses, rather the defence story is more probable based on the defence witnesses DW/1 to DW/5. The trial court after discussing every aspect of the matter, has rightly acquitted the respondent, therefore, no interference is called for in the im