S:i-^ M:i:Siti ;t|S:'^"i:iif't'1 f:'ii''iiu:: liiIII lli |s|B68fl3i :iiiiiiii;i ili - - (»- sanas6! fl'flUSS.il i^ii:ii^^. 'S!MIS8BIT **""-:—&—' '?^gg^^;l ^ "- *-»n4^i»B f1^^ .j:'j i: n^:':'11 " .h::?'!;^.:;; IN ISE HIGB GOUaC r.at.c. Ho« M^. AT .a'ABALPBR*'" ""L G&I10BAL APEEAL BO*"3~^'<?>^"'71997«; :- THE STA'EB £F H.P. APEEI.IAHIi- :- -VERSBB BESP©KISOTSi- :- K.L. SHKETASTAVA, S^@ MOHAS LAL aR^AS-IAV^, A6EB AB0OT 3^'teABS, ' REAIZK OF S.D^* CQBES SASA, BL^KlCX^SStE,.,. APELICAIlaH^ea.SBAmJBR JSASR.Se AEEE.AL> A&AIBSE ACGBII Acasr MK £S.,.57§i TAt. WB .97B 33 i3J GB,*B»G»AH33,GR«A* ASAIHSI ai.p-G* liS^llllllli fi:llilr:lli|.lill fi::iidi^Blil W.'KW^ ll-S111SII]i:-l! i;h?l^ii8;.l'^l !;;-;l-i;!.-sil!E^:l .':.^1 'WK'Si^ ^ ^MSiii!;i;'l M.IJIJIIffiMi >. / ^f r m. IT i5T 1 DA Single Bench •• Hon'bl®Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaksr in State of AAadhya Pradesh K.L. Shrivastava 5hri Praveen Das, &y. 6.A. for the State/appeilant. Shri &.N. Prajapati, counsel for The respondent/accused. OF THE CO.DE QF CRIMINAL. PROCEDUSE (23.02.2011) The present appea! arises out of the impugned judgment and order a'ated 30.6.1997 passed by 1" Additiona! Sessions Judge, Durg in Specia! Case No. 3/1994 acqui'tting the respondent/accused of the offences punishable under-, 5ections 7 <& 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption i4ct. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at the reievant time the "espondent/accused was working as Steno Typist in the court of S.D.AA-, Bemetar'a. It is alleged t'nat the respondsnt/accused made a demand of Rs.2,000/- to ensure the non-forfeiture of bail bonds of the reiative of complalnant Sejnath. As per the case of the » prosecution a compiaint (Ex.P-l) was made by complainant Sejnath aiiegi'ng thot respondent/accused is ciemanciing Rs.2,000/- from him and ultiTiateiy the matter was settled for Rs.800/- md Rs. 300 was alreaay obtained as an advance and while obtaining the remainins bnbe amour!t"o^ Rs.500, he was trapped in the office of S.&./A. where he was posted. After comp'etion of the investigation, chailan was fiied on 4-5.1994 against the respondent/accused. 3. In ordei" to 'pr'ove the guiit of the respondent/accused the prosecution has excmjned as many as 6 witnesses in support of its cdae;, Sl'atement of the ..-espondent/accused was ajso recorded under Section 313 pf'tfie C&de of Criminai Procedure in which he ^l :1- •!f ,6 \^~^F./:1 ^,^-^ denied the charges ieveled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in ths case. 4. By the Jud9ment impugned the court beiow has acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) read wi+h Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 'rfence this appeal. "<» 5. Counsel for the State/oppe'lant submits that on the basis of svidence adduced by the prosecution, the cou"t below ought to have convicted the respondents/cccused. He submits that the bribe amount of Rs.500 was recovered from the possession of the respondent and this has been proved by tii®trap witnesses. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the counsel for the respondent/dccused that the demand itself has not been proved by the prosecution because of the non-examination of the complainant Sejnath as the said compiainant had.-expired during the pendency of the trial. He further submits that the respondent was working as Steno Typist in 1+ieoffice of the S.&.M. and was not competent to interfere in any manner in the judicial matter regarding forfeiture of the bail bonds. He submits that merely on the basis of hearsay witnesses in respect of raislng demond by the respondent/accused, he cannot be convicted. !-le further submits that the illegal gratification made by the respondent was not proved on account of the absence of the < / .. 7. I hcve heard counsel for the parties and perused the materia! avcilable on record including judgment impugned. 1 8. ' From the "evidence adduced by the prosecution it is apparent that the prbsecution bas utterly.faiied to prove the demand made by the r'espondent/'accysey because of the nQn-examination of the corri'plainant Sejnath as the so.id compiainant hcd expired during the pendency of ths trial. Furthermore ns the respondent/accused was ?1 )\ .-> working as Steno Typist in the office of the S.D.M., he was not competent to interfere in any monner in the judicia! matter- regarding forfeiture of the bail bonds. Af+er due appreciation of the evidence avai!ab!e on record, the Court be!ow has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecu+ion has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the respondent/accused was entitled for acquittal. '' After hearing counsel for •tne aoDellcmt and considering the material a'/ailable on record as well as the elaborate Judgment impugned and being very-much conscious of the existing legai position that in an appea! against acquittai if two views are possibie on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the tria! Court taken one view favoured the accused, taking the o+her piausible view into consideration, is not permissibie in law and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the Judgment impugned acquittin; the respondents/accusedof the offence und&r Section 7 <& 13 (!) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordlng!y, the appeal being without substaice is liable to be dismissed. It is accordinaly dismissed. Pritinker Diwaker Judge >. /