ijngie IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR AT CHHATTIS©AR& ^. NO.XS?SOF^®*-5^13-- ^Sr- F« ) '• APPELLANT RESPONDENT yi^--^\^. • '.W.i .*,< ^;^^ ^ • State of Chhattisgarh Through Inspector, Special Police, Lokayukt OfFice, Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1. Mukul Vikas Samant, S/o Shri Jateendra Nath Samanth, aged about 47 years, Asstt. Grade III (Public Servant In Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board Office at Kohka of District Durg (CG). R/o 48/3, Radhika Nagar, Thana Supela, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG) APPLICATION FOR GRABFT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378-^31 AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (if OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. ^' KE6H CQURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASWR Sirigle Bench : Hon'bie Wr. JusTice Pritinker Diwaker AcquJttal Appeal No. 99 of 2009 APPEU.ANT RESPONDENT State of Chhattisgcrh Versus Mukul Vikas Samont Shri Akhil AAishra, Dy. 6ovt. Advocate for the State. Shri Vivek Sharma, counsel for the respondent. APPUCATION F<»6RANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UN&ER SECTION 378 flt OF THE CODE OF CRIAUNAL PROCE&URE JU&6E^ENT (16.03.2011) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.12.2004 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge/Specid Judge, Durg in Speciat Case No. 1/2003 acquitting the respondent/accu^d of the offences punishable underSections 7 A 13 (l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Case of the prosecut.ion in brief is tho* at the relevant time aecused/fes'pondent was working as Assistoint Grade - III in the Chhattisgarh Electricity Boapd (for short CSEB) and was posted at.Kuhkig, bistrict Bhilqi. It is alleged thot the pespondent/accused demanded fts. 6;600/- for providing three phase connection to thecoroplainGnt Zulfikar Aii (PW-1). It is further alteqed that on 26.3.2002 a written complaint/applicatibn was made by the complainant Julfikar Ali (PW-l) to the S.P. (Lokayukta) Raipur vide Ex.P-1 and creting upon the said application, a trop party was constituted and after compteting all the formalities, the trap was laid on 26.3.2002 at about 4 p.m. in the office of the respondent/accused. It is also alleged thort- the bribe amount of fts.6,600/- was handed over by the complainant to the respondent/accused, complainant Zulfikar Ali (PW-1) came out of the office and goive signat to the tpap parly. Trap party entered the office and seized the money from the left pocket of the pant of the accused/respondent vide Ex.P-7. Phenolphthalein test of both the hands of the accused/respondent was conducted which proved positive. Furt'her investigotion was taken up by Triveni Shanker Sulre (PW-2). After exomining the witnesses and obtaining sanction the charge steet was filed a9ainst the accused/respondent. 3. In order to prove the guilt of the respondent/accused the prosecution has examined as mony as 12 witnesses in support of its cose. Statement of the respondent/accused was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the ctorges leveted cgainst him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the cose. The accused/respondent, however, has takai the defence thart- the complainant is his neighbour and used to give him monsy towards his etectric bills. H®has furt-her taken the defence that a temporary connection was granted in the nome of the wife of the complainant on 1.3.2002 but as the meter got bumt, the complainant was under an obligort-ion to pay Rs.1,150/- cnd was further liable to pay Rs.1,190/- towards the charges of temporary connection and against these two amounts, demand notes were issued by one Sohankil Agrowal, Assistant ©rade-I.He has also taken the defence that the applicort'ion for temporoiry connection wasalso made bythe 13S3-^- •""% ^ ^ "T- -itOrS^i g '^ complainant for which he was required to poy Rs.4,195/- and stamp was required to be purchcsed for the execution of the agreement ond thus the totat cmount of Rs.6,585/- was outstoinding against the complainant and this amount to be poid to the Electricity Depart'ment and for this purpose, the amount of Rs.6,600/- was given to him. Accused/appellont has furt-her taken the defence thot bein9 a neighbour he wag tryirq to help the complainant as the complainant was busy in his business and showed some diffiailties. 4. By the judgment im(xjgned the court' below has aajuitted the r^pondent/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13 (l)(d) reod with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the Stdte/appeltont submits that the court- betow has erred in low in accepting the defence of the respondent/accused. He ajbmits that the demand note (EX.P- 16) in respect of the gront of three face connection to the tune of Rs.4,195/- wos issued on 23.3.2002 ond no other amount was due against the complainont. He further submits thot the entries in the documents have been interpolated by the employees of CSBBjust to favour the respondent/accused. He further submits that there is absotutely no evidence on record to show as to why atl of a ®jddenthe comptainant would falsely implicoted the respondent/accused especially when they were neighbours and enjoying good relort'rons. 6. On the other hond, supporting the impugned judgment it has been <rgued bycounsel for the respondent thart-defence taken by the respondent/accused is a probable defence ond once the court below is (Kcepted the same, this court' may not tike to inteTfere with the judgment of acquitt-al especially when the view taken by the court below is one of the possibte and plausible view. He submits that on 11.3.2002 vide Ex.P-27, demcnd of Rs.1150 was made by the.department towards the bumt meter and likewise on l.4.2002 vide Ex.P-33at sertal No. 135 of the register energy bill of Rs.1,190/- was outstanding against the comptainoint. He submits that if the amount of Rs. 4194/-, Rs. 1150/- and Rs.1190/- is calculated the same comes to Rs. 6535/- ond the respondent/accused was liable to retum the omount of Rs.65/- which he could not return as he had no occasion for the same and was trapped by the Trap Part-y. He further submits that even the complainont Julfikar Ati (PW-l) in his evidence has admttted the outstanding of Rs.1150, Rs. 1190 and Rs.4195/-. 7. I have heard counset for the pcrf-ies gnd perused the material available on record including judgnient impugned. 8, After due appreciation of the evidCTice available on record, the Court- below has arrived at the conclusion thcrt- the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond ali reasonable doubts, the respondent/accused was entitted for acquittat. 9. After hearing counsel for the appeltant cmd considering the nKiterial available on record os welt as the elaborote judgment impugned and being vwy much conscious of the existing legal position thot in an appeal against ocqurt-t-al if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court' taken one view favoured the accused, taking the other plausible vi©ivinto considerotioh, is not permissible in law cmd therefore this Court is of the considered opinion thot the judgment impugned acquittmg the respondent/accused of the offence under Sed'ions 7 <& 13 (l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is just and proper and does not warront cny interference by this Court-. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is tiabte to be dianissed. It is accordingly disntissed.___^—- Sd/- priunkerO^atot ludge f\i