V ’ , m ,_ ,_ I ,_ ¥ _ Sing‘e BEI’sCh /\;“-“m§” IN’ THEVHIGH‘COURT OF JUDICATURE AT:‘ JABALPUR. ' r ,I’ aviiérfci nog33wi crimnax" Appeai {no} \‘ 53?; c1? 1997 3? _ x étate of- &8 Ayp‘ELLANr‘ r -vzasirs; RESPONDENfs, g”; acévsw' ' - 'a Moalghand' Semis/0 Premlal \Soni, , _ ‘ agga Hathkargha; abcut 52 Karyalaya.’ yeansy‘zsstt. Asstt,‘ Inspe¢£¢r‘, Director, ( ¢ "‘ athlcargha,‘ Santrabadi, DURG (MEX; \ wmm‘I f" H / n 373)" - , o 3( m s c m) m ml _ CR H16H COURT GE CHHATH$QA£H AT EILA5PIJR Singie Bench a Hawbig 5M. Juwca ?r§‘§’mk£r Qiwaker Crimina§ Appaaé Na 1532 of 199? APPELLANT 5mm of Madhya Pradesh (n‘ew Chhm‘fisgarh) VarsuS Maokhcmd Sam sari 6f ?rem3c§ Sani RESPONDENT Accused ‘ Shri Pankaj $hriva$favq PL fer #ha Smfe/appaHanfr. Shri IP. Singh, counsei far 'me respcndem. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER 5E€TIGN 3?8 (1) OF Ti—E CGDE Gx’; (JRLV‘INAI. PROCEELRE. JUDGEMENT (29.04.2Gl0) The presem‘ appzai arises ou‘i‘ of the judgmem and arder dated 01.04.1997 passed by Specia! Judge, burg in Specid .Case No. 4/1993 acquiffmg The respondenT/accused forthe alieged offence punishabie under Sgcfian ?, 13(1){d) and 13 (2} of The Prevention of Corrup?icn Act 2: Brief facts 0f ‘J'he case are Thai? a? The regevan‘? t§me respcndenT/aceused was working as Inspecfer in The Offiee of Assistant Director 0f Handioam and had demanded Rs.2,30@/- as bribe from 'ihe compiainan'i Vyas Nnrayan Dewangan {PW-1) for sanctioning subsidy omouni of Rs. 35,?7055 To one Moyam‘oya Bunker Sankori Scmifi Moryodif, Fawn; The compioin’r was mode by the compioinon? on 12.190 vide EXP-1 To file Superiniendeni of Poiicer, Lokoyuki‘. The pre imp panchnomo was conduc‘ied and offer formation of the Trap party, respondent/accused was caught raid handed on 12.1.90 when hevwas acoeoting the amount of Rs.2,5QQ and the matter was sent to the Bhopai and after sanction order EXP—9, Dehati Nalsihi (Ex.P-12) was ragisfgred and. later an c‘naiim was fiied againsf i‘hz respondent/accused 3. In suppart 9f ifs casg, The prmsacutiars has zxgmimd a many as 10 wi‘masses. Smfemenf Of The raspondamlaccused ‘ was also cegd uer §ec?i@n 313 cf Thg {Jade in‘ Crim§mi Procedure n wch he denied ‘g‘he charge IeveHed againsf him and pleaded his Mnecenee and fglge impiiea?§gn in ifhe cege. 4, y T judgmen‘? impugned The mur’r bebw has acquiwed fhe r‘espendf/aceused for The affenees as menfrmned gbave. Hce fhi appea!‘ 5. Ccunei far Th 5M‘fei’appeHam submi‘rs Jrhm‘ an {me basis of evidence as adéuced by The presecufian, The 5mm beiow ougt fa have ccnvie’md me gee ased/respemdent He submiTs/Thaf The ama? was recavered fmm “me pessesgion ef -‘re accused/respamiem end as perihe F5L repor?, *rhe penolphfhaiein Tesf is pagifixfe; and The frag: wifneeses have duly supporfed fhe pmsecufion case and, fherefor‘e, mere was ne accasian far ’ie ccurt beiaw m acquit responm/accsed. deu the 6. On The efher hand suppam’ing é‘he imgsugned judgmen‘; h‘ has been argued an behah‘ m? “we respandem ma: pmsecmion has uh‘er'éy faiied Tc prove fhe demand and acceptance cf we bribe and accgrding m ’ihe gampisinan’r himsei‘? acCused/responden? was nm‘ compe‘iem 1'0 sancfien‘fhe subsidy amoun‘r. He submi'is ma? file siieged bribe amcaun‘i of Rs.2,300/- was farcibiy giyen f0 Tine accused/respenden? Thaugh he was denying m accep‘i' ihe same. s rerd nd i w B he en en s s e h un h h h 7. I have heard sounsei far fha par?§es and peruged The mafer'igi avaiiabie. an regard: 8, ‘v’yas Namycm Dewmgcm (RAJ-1}, the 5Qmp§ainam has sfa’red fha’r tha respoMem/accused has informal him That affer' compizting aii fhe f0rma§i?ies, hi5 case 0‘? gran? 23f subsidy has airgady bgen farwgr'dad Ta we Assismn? Diraa‘mr and now The same wauld be sanc‘iiongd by him. He has sm‘md That it is the Assismn‘r Direcfor' wha §s demanding maney a‘f Rs.2,000/—und fherefere, Assismn’r D3mc1'ar has asked him 1:9 gea‘ ‘fhig amount fmm The compiainant and themfcra, ha §gdgg The ccmpktim. Campiainan’r admi‘fs mm n9 money wha'rseever was demanded by The accused/respondem and The Trap Party has instructed him That even if fhe accnsed/r’esponden‘? dees not accepfvfhe amount by force he has To pm said amount in his pocket He sm‘ies That when he had informed 'ihe amused Thai Assis‘iani' Director has direcied him To give Rs.2,GOO/- To Shri Scni (accused/respondent). Respgndeni/accused has refused Tc accept the said amcunt by saying that he is not aware about any such thing. This witness has further stated that respondent/accused has categaricaiiy stated that under no circumstances, he will accept the amaunt but as he was instructed by the trap party, by using farce, he put that amount of RsZDOQ in the pocket of the respondent/accused. He has further reiterated that fact that in paragraph No. 1e of his cross-examination, neither the accused/respondent had demanded money from him nor he was accepted. 9. After due appreciation of the evidence avaita’oie on v record, the Court betow has arrived to a conclusion that the proszcuficn hQ$ net begn ab!e Tc preve ifs case bgyond (2H regsengble doub‘rs, and Therefar'e the respgndgnf is antifrmd for acquh‘mi. 10; Affer hearing caunsgl fer The parties and going Thmugh the evidence availabk on reccrd and being very much canscmus of fhe exis‘Hng legal! posh‘ion that in a ca$a against acqmfmi if Two views are possibie on “(ha basis of Th5 evidence led by mg pmsecufion and The Trigi Cour? Taking cne vigw favaumbie fro the accused, reversien 0f The findings Gf acquitmi by ihe appellate Caur'f faking the other pessibie View inm considerm‘ion, is no’r permissible in law, irhis Cgur‘f is ef the View The? The judgmeni’ impugned acqui‘iiing ihe respcndent/ accused ef The offence punishable under Seciicm 7, 13(1)(d) and 13 (Z) of The Preven'iien of Co’rrupTion AcT, is jus‘? and ’pr‘oper' and d¢es nof cadi far any inferfer'ence by This Court. 11. For The reasons aforemenTioned, There is no meriT in The presenT case end The same is dismissed accordingi‘ y