HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. APD. No. 1653/1996 SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar ^; APPELLANT RESPONDENTS The State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) Versus B. Singh and another. JUDGMENT Post for pronouncement of Judgment '7 .03.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^ :[' • ^ ^...;: —.^.•.^•••'"; <-":'^., ¥<N*<T—-^ .^- . L ""ljs?r"^ ;^ ^..-^^-^^: E^ ;^.!' fss'^'' .f^:. •"-^*.?-- ~,.^^^^ HIGHCQURT QF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. Appellant Respondents Criminal Apoeal No. 1653/1996 The State of Madhya Pradesh through the Police Station, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Karyalaya, M.P. Bhopal Unit Raipur (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. B. Singh, S/o Sunder Singh,aged 35years, Gram Sevak, Arang, Distt. Raipur (M.P. now C.G.) 2. Shyam Kishore, S/o Rooplal Shrivastava, B.D.O., Arang, Distt. Raipur (MP now C.G.) APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL U/S 378 (3) OF THE CR.P.C.AND APPEAL U/S 378 (1) CR.P.C. Present:- Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. Government Advocate for the State. Shri S.R.J.Jaiswal, counsel for the respondent No.l. Shri Anand Verma appears on behalf of Shri B.M.K.Bajpai, counsel for respondent No.2 JUDGMENT (Deliveredon (7 /03/2010) The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.03.1995 passed in Special Criminal Case 20/92 by Special Judge, Raipur whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Section 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (henceforth 'the Act?). 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that complainant - Bhagwat Prasad is a contractor and being a contractor he was entrusted the work of road between the village Kukhora to Paraskol in the year 1987. The said work entrusted to him was done and for that respondent No.2 ~ Shyam Kishore Shrivastava, who was posted as Vikaskhand Adhikari (Black Development Officer) at Aarang, Dist. Raipur, paid a sum of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant for the work being done by him .^s^ 5%^- .A.-^ ^ and a sum of Rs.16,700/- remained outstanding to be paid to the complainant. When the complainant went to respondent No.2 to receive the outstanding amount, the respondent No.2 put a demand for Rs.1350/- as illegal gratification whereas respondent No.l - B. Singh, who was working as Grani Sevak at Aarang, put a demand for Rs.500/-. Since the complainant does not want to fulfill their demand, he lodged a complaint on 08.06.1987 in the office of Lokayukt vide Ex.P.1. Along with complaint, a sum of Rs.1850/- in denomination of eighteen currency notes of Rs.100/- andone currency note Rs.50/- was given and affer applying phenolphthalein powder on those currency notes the same were returned to the complainant. Dy. Police Superintendent K.K.Sharma arranged a trap party. Preliminary panchnama was also prepared vide Ex.P.2 wherein numbers of currency notes were mentioned. After completion of necessary formalities, the trap party started its destination to village Aarang where the complainant was sent to the bungalow of respondent No.2 and the complainant was about to give that sum to respondent No.2 whereupon the respondent No.2 directed the complainant to give the same to co-accused (respondent No.l) B.Singh and the complainant went to his house and gave that sum to respondent No.l. He gave a signal to the trap pay. On this, the trap party went inside the house of respondent No.l and upon searching the currencynotes wereseized, which were kept under the 'Mandir'. The hands of respondent No.l - B. Singh and also those currency notes were dipped in the solution of Sodium Carbonate water (for short 'colourless water') and immediately the colourless water turned pink colour. Thereafter proceedings panchnama was prepared. Necessary seizures were made and statements of witnesses under Section 161 ofthe Cr.P.C. were recorded. 3. After completion of investigation and after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority, charge sheet was filed under Section 7 and 13(l)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act before the Court of Special Judge. The charges were framed and read over and explained to the respondents who -^'' abjured the guilt and pleaded their innocence and false implication. 4. The learned Special Judge, Raipur, after affording an opportunity to the parties and after evaluating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents of the charge as aforesaid. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/State argued that despite there being ample evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case, the learned Special Judge erred to appreciate the evidence resulting in acquittal of the respondents/accused from the charges as aforementioned. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned judgment. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned judgment including record of the Court below. 8. In the present case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Complainant Bhagwat Prasad P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that in the year 1987 he was entrusted to the contract work of completing road between villages Kukhora toParakol and after coinpletion of that work, he was paid a sum of Rs.33,000/- by respondent No.2, who was working at that time as Block Development Officer at Aarang and a sum of Rs. 16,700/- remained as outstanding. The complainant has further deposed that he persuaded the said respondent to receive his outstanding amount but the said respondent demanded Rs.2000/- as illegal gratification for sanctioning his outstanding amount and thereafter the said amount was reduced to Rs.1500/- and ultimately it was agreed to give Rs.1350/- to respondent No.2, as illegal gratification whereas the respondent No.l, who was also working as Gram Sevak, demanded Rs.500/-. It was further deposed by this witness that accused/respondent No. 2 ordered that out of Rs.16,700/-, •V F, '^,\ Rs.8,000/- be given to this witness and remaining amount be given only after receipt of illegal demand but this witness has refused to receive Rs.8,000/- and the complainant went to the Office of Lokayukt and lodged a report. 9. On perusal of statement of the complainant, it is clear that assessment ofwork was firstly valued at Rs.1,51,000/- and at the instance of respondent No.2, the said amount was reduced and for this act of respondent No.2 the complainant got annoyed resulting into lodging of complaint against the said respondent. It is also clear that if the evidence adduced before the Court, the statement given to the police and complaint lodged in the Office of Lokayukt are considered together, they are contradictory to each other. According to him, first of all Rs.2000/- was demanded as illegal gratification, then Rs.1500/- and ultimately the amount was reduced to Rs.1350/- as illegal gratification but in his complaint Ex.P.l and also statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. this fact does not find place. In these circumstances, it is not safe to rely on the statement of the complainant. The complainant also admitted in his evidence that for the contract being done by him a sum of Rs.33,300/- was paid to him by respondent No.2 but at that time illegal gratification was not made by the said respondent. 10. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant had gone to the bungalow of respondent No.2/accused for giving that bribe money, one Shankarlal was also present with the complainant and when complainant was about to give that bribe money, he was directed to give the same to co-accused B. Singh and the said bribe money was given to co-accused B. Singh Shankarlal was also along with him. Shankarlal P.W.4, who was also examined by the prosecution as independent witness, did not support the above evidence of the complainant. Though Shankarlal P.W.4 was declared hostile, but he was cross-examined and in his cross-examination nothing has been elicited about the incident. Thus, if the evidence of the complainant is taken at its face value, it does not inspire confidence and trustworthy. Moreover, no \ ^. independent witness was examined to corroborate the evidence of the complainant. 11. Surendra Kumar Saxena P.W.5, Deputy Collector, has deposed in his evidence that he sent the complainant to the office of respondent No.2 and the complainant came back to him and said that respondent No.2 refused to accept the bribe money. He has further deposed that again the complainant had gone to quarter of Gram Sevak (co-accused B. Singh) along with bribe money. But in his evidence it is not clear that what has been stated by the complainant after returning from the office of B.D.O. It is also evident that after giving the bribe money to respondent No.l, the complainant gave a signal to trap party and the trap party caught hold ofB.Singh red-handed and despite search being effected no currency notes were recovered from the person of respondent No.l but were recovered from his Mandir, which was situated in open placeof courtyard. On perusal of evidence, it is not clear that on the direction of respondent No.2 the complainant went to respondent No.l and gave bribe money to him and currency note^recpvered from Mandir situated in an open place. ^ ^ ^ It is also noticeable that Mandir is situated in an open place and any person can put money there. Therefore, this witness has also failed to lead evidence in support of the version of the complainant. It is also not stated by the prosecution that conspiracy took place between the respondent No.l and respondent No.2 before the incident to take bribe money. The prosecution has also failed to prove that respondent No.l took bribe money at the instance of respondent No.2. 12. P.W.l is the witness of applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. The evidence of P.W.6 Constable John Verghese and P.W.7 Arun Mathur is also not reliable and trustworthy because they have not heard the conversation held between respondents and the complainant. These witnesses are only formally witnesses of the prosecution. In the matter of A. Subair v. State of Kerala, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3994 6 @ wherein the Supreme Court has held that prosecution has to prove demand made by the accused and money given to him. In the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to lead evidence relating to demand of illegal gratification made by the respondents. Therefore, the learned lower Court has rightly disbelieved the statements of witnesses of prosecution and has rightly acquitted the respondents of fhe charge as above. The findings and conclusions recorded by the lower Court are purely based on legal, clinching and credible evidence. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case and after considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the Court below, I am of the view that in an appeal against acquittal if two views on the prosecution evidence are possible and the trial Court has taken one view favourable to the accused persons, then it will not be permissible for the appellate Court to reverse the finding of acquittal by taking the other possible view on the prosecution evidence. Thus, the judgment of the trial Court is not perverse and illegal. 14. In the result, I do not find any such infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal which may warrant interference in this appeal against acquittal. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of respondents/accused persons is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \~-....