IN THE HIGH COU£T OF CHHATTISGARH JUDICATURE AT . v BILASPUR > gamf§‘% ~ g‘g‘w‘ @ ACQUITTAL APPEAL No. “SWA ma? of—%C>,é0 moo?) V State of Chhattisgarh, Thrnugh: State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Raipur, Unit - Anti Corruption Bureau, Bilaspur (C.G,) RESPONDENT Sabitlai Chou:,,han, S/o — Shri D.S. Chouihan, Aged about - 44 years, R/o - Kharsia, Town Inspector, Thana — Akaltara, At Present - Town Inspector, Kota, District — Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICATIONEOKGRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3}AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (TI/OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURg 1973. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon Mr Justice Prltlnker Dlwaker) Acqulttal Appeal No. 72 of 2009. State of Chhattisgarh. APPELLANT VERSUS l Ch RESPONDENT Sabitla ouhan Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri H S Ahluwalia counsel for the respondent CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF ‘- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE O R D E R (25.01.2011) The instant appeal is directed against the impugned judgment ’da'‘ted 27.6.2006 passed by Special Judge (under Prevention of ption Act) &Additional Sessions Judge, Bllaspur in Special Case o 5/2004 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences ‘e 'nder Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of l ef' facts of the case are that at the relevant time -‘respondent/accused was posted at police station Akaltara as Inspector ' nd on 1 5 2002 a written report Ex P—2 was made by the complainant amely Krishna Kumar Jagat (PW 3) alleging that as his nephew namely Shiv Kumar was made accused in Crime No 90/2002 for the i‘offences under Sections 366 and 376 IPC in order to extend benefit to him the respondent/accused was demanding Rs 5000 but as he was ‘ not interested in givmg the said amount a written report was given to ' S P (Lokayukta) initial Panchnama Fx W -6 was prepared transcription of conversation EX P 7 between the complainant and the I respondent/accused was recorded trap party was constituted on; i 352002 50 currency notes of 100 denomination were chemically treated by applying phenolphthalein powder thereon trap was laid in presence of the Witnesses namely A Tirki (PW-5) and Yakub Tirki «N ”I .u -' n a n « -1— (PW—9), money was given to the respondent/accused in his house and after giving signal to the tra party the accused/respondent was trappd. Tp nma x. ws prepar a thert FIR x. P-4 was registerd. Afr comleti the iestiio d obtaii sin to precute resdent/, led o .3.2004 for the offences under Seion 7, 13 (') () d 13 (2) o the Pveo of Corruption Act. i order to prove the guiit of the repodent/accse the . prosecution h eained a any as 1'3 witss in port of it case. Stement of th sonde/accuse as also rored u Section 31 of the Cod of Criminal rcedure in hih e dei t ches levelled against him and pled his inocence d flse implicion in t cae. 5. Counel for the ppellant/Ste ubits tt the ourt bl’ has citt a grave error law in acquitt te respondent/acd onl on the basis of e tatement of the omplainant. He ubits tha even th mplainant s turnd hostile, in iew f te an the investigating officer and other prosecution witnesses, it ought to have convicted him under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount has. duly been proved by th .l ' u prosecution. l, w 6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment and submits that the demand and acceptance of the bribe money has not at all been proved bythe prosecution because the voice of the tape recorder playing the conversation between the accused and the complainant was not clearly audible a per the statement of Yakub Tirki (PW-9) and that nobody has seen the complainant giving money to the accused/appellant. He submits that a p e ra Pachna E P—16 a ed nd eafer E e te png nvgatn an nng ancto os the ponaccused challan was fi n 17 cts 1 d an f rentin 3 as xm s m nees sup s at e repntd w ecd nder 3 e Po wc h ned he arg ade n an a at he s n snud 4. After hearng th paries the trial Court h quitted t i e t as ac he respondet/accused of h charges levlled against h. n te e im s aat sm ha C eow ommed of ing h cuse y th s c sm t if e co ha e v o h sttemets of e s s ._.3~ the complainant himself has turned hostile, the acquittal of the respondent/accused as has been done by the Court below is just and proper and does not require any interference in this appeal. He submits that even the shadow witness namely Sanjay Kumar Neti (PW-1 1) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Undisputedly, the complainant herein has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. lt is also not disputed that nobody has seen the complainant giving bribe money to the accused/respondent. As per the case of the prosecution, the bribe amount was kept by the complainant on a sofa but chemical report Ex. P—28 does not support its cas‘e. This report does not confirm the presence of phenolphthalein powder in the solution with which the respondent’s hands were washed. Even the shadow witness Sanjay Kumar Neti (PW-1 1) has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. Independent witnesses namely A. Tirki (PW—5) and Yakub Tirki (PW-9) have not fully supported the case of the prosecution as there are material contradictions and omissions 'in their statements. In respect of transcription of conversation between the c‘omplainant and the accused/respondent, Yakub Tirki (PW-9) has stated that it was not clearly audible. 9. Thus after going through the material available on record, considering the fact that the complainant himself has not supported th case of the prosecution, that the statements of independent witnesses namely A. Tirki (PW-5) and Yakub Tirki (PW—9) contain material contradictions and omissions in the same and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, taking the other possible view into consideration, is not permissible in 7. e 1’. ‘ 7M Mpg law and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent laccused of the offences under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Acoordingly, the appeal being without substance is iiable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 1E— -q_ Sci/f \“"“T‘1‘f Pritinker Diwaker Judge @ g