Omooooomqmww . IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 355 of 1990 I State of Madhya Pra‘desh APPLICANT VERSUS RESPONDENT Balram Singh Yadav Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for the applican’t/State. NOne for the respondent/accused RIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 11) OF THE CODE O I, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE J U D G M E N -T (26.04.201 0)’ t 4" V ‘ ‘V y ‘ \myl The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 27.9.1989 passed by Special Judge, Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 73/1987 acquitting the respondent/accused of the‘offence “urider Section 5 (1)(d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 ofthe Indian Penal Code. ' 2. Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant time the respondent/accused was working ’as Sub Engineer (Rural) in the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (MPEB. for short). It is aileged that he had demanded Rs. 500 from the complainant Bal Krishna Das (PW-2) to provide fresh electric meter in the name of his mother namely Godavari Bai: On the complaint of complainant a trap was laid on, 24.9.1986 where the respondent/accused was found accepting Rs. 500 from the complainant as bribe. 3. So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty prosecutiOn has examined 07 Witnesses in support of its case Statement of the, accused/respondent was also recorded under section 313 of th Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innoCenc‘e and false implication in the ‘ case. This apart. seven witnesses namely Ha‘‘rjender Singh, ‘ Rikhidas, Hajrat Khan, R.K..Sahu, Ganesh Shankar Deshmukh, Tapanram and Ashok Kumar Sen alias Billu (DW—1 ltoDW—7 tespectively) have been examined by the defence in support of its case. H e V 4. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have convicted the respondent/aocused for the offences under section 5 (1)(d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the ‘Indian Penal Code but ignoring the same and the‘teby awarding acquittal to the respondent, it has fallen in a grave legal error. He submits that the Court below has erred in law in acquitting the respondent only on the ground that the respondent/accused was in charge of the town area to provide electric connection whereas he matter relates to rural area. &/ 5 . Heard counsel for the appellant/State and perused the material available 0n record 6. From the evidence of Sharad- Kumar (PW-3) — Assistant Engineer in the MPEB, posted at Rajnandgaon, it is clear that the respondent/accused was the in charge of the town area whereas the e lectric connection was to be provided in the rural area and therefore the respondent was not the competent authority in respect of providing the meters to the people of rural area.‘Furthermore, the evidence has come that the respondent/accused was the Sub Engineer and therefore also he was not competent to provide electric connection in favour of 'the consumer of. rural area. Complainant (PW-2) has admitted the fact that of the. date of trap itself he came to know that it is the respondent/aCcused who was competent to provide electric connection in his favour as this information was given'to' hi'm' by'Shara'd Kumar (PW-3). lf on the date of trap itself, the complainant had come to know about the authority of the respondent/accused then the question of prior demand of bribe as alleged by the complainant does n’ot arise. FrOm the record it is also clear that the complainant had forcefully put the amount, of bribe‘inv‘the'pocket'of shirt o'f'the respondent/accused which‘he had-refused to accept. Thus the view taken by the Court below in acquitting' the respondent/accused appears to be well founded and no interference therewith is warranted. ’ t . .‘w‘ Cg 7. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeai against acquittai if two views are posSibie on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, this Court is of the considered opinion'fthat‘ reversion ofthe findings of acquittai by the appeilate Court taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondents /accused of the offence under Section 5 (1)(d) and 5 (2) of the Preventionvof Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, is j'ust and proper and, does not warrant any interference by this Co'urt. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable 7M#i to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Sdl— J rg/ l l l i