Order on Board

23/02/2022

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2000 passed by Special Judge Ambikapur in Special Sessions Trial No. 5/1993, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17.08.1987, at that time complainant Prayag's revenue case in the name of his wife Laxmania was pending in the ofÏce of the respondent/accused. The accused/respondent had demanded a bribe of Rs. 1000/-. The complainant had asked him to pay the money in two installments and after that he lodged a report at the police station, but there was no action, so he went to Bilaspur and there he lodged a written complaint (Ex.-P/1) before Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). The complainant did not want to give bribe to the accused and wanted to be caught him, due to which the accused had asked him to give money in his ofÏce on that day, on 20.08.1987, he went to the divisional ofÏce of the Lokayukt of Special Police Establishment, Bilaspur. The complaint letter of Ex.-P/1 was given to the Superintendent of Police, on which a note was written and directed for action. Certain preparations were made prior to trapping the respondent. On 21.08.1987 at 11:00 am, complainant and trap team were reached at Premnagar, complainant went to the ofÏce of respondent and after some time as per plan he gave a sign and the trap team reached there to caught the respondent red handed. Other formalities and Phenolphthalein test was done. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and the trial Court framed the charges under Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the respondent.

3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses and documents Ex.-P/1 to P/ 13. The respondent examined 3 witnesses and documents Ex.-D/1 to D/4 in his defence. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court found that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and by impugned order dated 31.01.2000, acquitted the accused/respondent from the aforesaid charges. Hence, this appeal.

5. The learned State counsel submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal is bad in law and in facts and is liable to be set aside and converted into one of conviction. He next submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true and correct perspective, the learned trial Court should have seen that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. He also submits that the learned trial Court should have seen that Prayag (PW-1) has clearly stated that the accused had received the amount of bribe and his statement has been properly corroborated by R. Toppo (PW-7) and Edward Tirkey (PW-4) and the case of the complainant was also pending before the ofÏce of the accused/respondent. The order of learned trial Court is based on minor omissions and contradictions which are not in material particulars. The prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and respondent/accused should have convicted and maximum punishment should be provided.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial court and submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution has not filed original documents before the trial court. All seizure and important documents are copies of the original documents. The learned trial court also observed (in para-19) that in this case First Panchnama, Last Panchnama and seizure are not the original copy, and the photocopie