'.'.'Sfe^. .^SiS ^^s^-ie'^.^-O.^^^^vS't^S^^^^^S^ j;| ^.-WS~s.. "SM:^^ •e^t^^y'^ *a<A :<?s';"-1' CF0000060526 !C .W'^-fl-T. •^'•"••^'"SW^^^^S'^^^i^'SKS^^^ ;;::";''.'-.'; ,:''. 1 '' ::IA' • 'Wf9S:'^SXB^9VS8 3:W:SltfESWKffS&S@K.' -:31S^EVECSic y'^}1W^»»&;:^:;'.;^^fiEa^-\.j::^ L '^'•-'-"^watSk;<ri»,«(^".a^*. -^^'^ AEEEaEASTS* (^^'^^gt.,S^3^ »• ^^WB;..%"»*?^ SE X^SBSZS8S.SS^>fSKK '•Ksm R3Bie?iii» waEtanHs^^s!^^^gesa@Rs8a 'EtSSS!WwSSSs^S S£iSaBBaBiiSHa@E8BBjaa li^'1 ©SBI^I1WEiSSWWKS'eag^SX&SSSBS^f •/";^ ^'E'sswa^^s/e. ^Bp'reafiA, .» S@.,.iffiaAK:«fit aF:^fia»E<&fe^R/M iaB»«iiBBCBn£iE j®wgHt, 89^1% \- >. / •••;'ll^i<- HiGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT BItASPUR SB ; HON'BLE MiR. JUSTICE PRITINKBR DIWAKBR CR.A. N0. 68Sfl998 State of Madhva Prades]i versus Kainal Kis&ore Parvar Shri Paakaj Shrivastava, P.1. for the State/applicant. Shri Pushpendra Kuiaar Patel, counsel for the iispondeiit. APPLICATION FOR LBAVB TQ APPEAL UMOBR SECTIOS 378 CR.P.C. (06.05.2010) The present appeal arises out of fhe iiapugned judgiaeat & orier dated 21.8.96 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case No. 12/92 whereby acquittmg ftie respondent for the atleged offences under Sections 7 & 13 (l)(d) read witli Section 13(2) ofthe Prevention of Corruptioa Act. 1988. rt)t; ^)j 2. Brief facts of the case are that at tfae reievaat tune tlie respondent was working as A.G.-II ia fhe office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, BUaspur. It is alleged fhat one case under Section 107 and 116 ofthe Cr.P.C. was pendiag before fbe Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilaspur against Surendra Tiwari (P.W.-2) Narendm Tiroari (P.W.-3) aad Mohd. Sharif (P.W.-4). The allegation agaias^fhe respondent is fhat he deinaaded Rs. 500 as bribe SxiiS. c&iaplamant Surendra'-Tiwari to favour hini and ultimately the fieal was setfled for fhe amouiit of Rs. 200. It is aUeged fhat said Surendra Tiwari (P.W.-2) was not interested to give bribe ainount aad fherefore be Ipdged a coiaplamt (Ex.P/1) before the Dv. SuTSieriatendent of PoUce. Lok Avukt on 8.3.90. After coinpletiiig the formalities aad preparation of pre-trap paaehnamq Ex.P/2, trap was laid on 8.3.90 itself vid^. trap papchnaraa Ex.P/8. After obtaiaing sanctioa aad cpinpletuig '^, ;?°^i.^ ^' ^ other fonnalities charge sheet was filed 6n 27.6.92 aad the respondent was prosecufed for the offences as aforenientioned. 3. In support ofits case, the prosecution has examiiied ten witnesses. Stateinent of the accused/respondent was also recorded uiider Section 313 of ftie Cr.P.C. ia which he denied the char^es leveled agaiast him and pleaded his innoceiice and false implication ia the case. ":f 4. After hearing the parties, the trial Court has acquitted fhe accused/respondent for the offence as inentioned above. Hence the present appeal. 5. Contention of Shri. Shrivastava, counsel for fhe appUcaut/State is tliat the Court below has erred iti law ia acquittiilg the accused/respondent despite fhe fact that sufficient evidence has been adduced by fhe prosecution agauist him. 6. On. th.e other haad, it bas been argued by Shri Patel fhat coinplaiiiant Surendra Tiwari (P.W.-2), iraportaat wituesses Narendra Tiwari (P.W.-3) aad Mohd. Sharif (P.W.-4) have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. 7. I have heard counsel for fhe parties aad perused the niaterial available on record. Froui the evidence it is apparent that includia^ coniplainant Surendra Tiwari (P.W.-2), NarendraTiwari (P.W.-3) aad Mohd. S^arif (P.W.-4) ha not supported the prosecution case aud 'ttave tumed hostile. •fiven the coiuplamaut has specificaUy 'stated that the deinand was not niade by the respondent apd he has forcefuUy given the bribe am.oiint to fhe respondent It is thus clear tbat the deinand aud accepfance as required uiider - fhe provisions of the Act has not been established by.t&e prosecution. Further fhere appears to be ccintoradictions ia fhe stateinent ofRam Bahadur (P.w.-lO), Head .Coastable and Kashiraia Di?dt (P.W.-6) the iucfependent witaess. <r 8b... ^' ^ij, '•'';>,._ ^..f f. %.J?''-""L<^ 8. All these aspects have been duly considered by the court below and after due appreciation of fhe evidence, the Court below has arrived to a particular conclusion of acquittmg the accused/ respondent. . 9. I fnid uo reason to interfere in fhe judgiaent of acquittal pardcularly fhe view taken by the court below is one of fhe possible view. It is a settled po^ition oflav? ui relation to csses against acquittal, in a petition against acquittal if frivo views are possible on fhe basis ofthe evidence led by fhe prosecution aiid ttie trial Court takiag one view favoured the accused, reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appeHate Court takiag fhe oflier possible view iato consideration is not permissible iu law. This Court is ofthe view that ftie judgraent nnpugned acquittiiig fhe respondents/accused of fhe offeuce as aBeged is just aad proper, Accoiduigly, the leave as sought for by flie applicant/ State for registration of appeal against the jiidginent ofacqilittal is hereby refused. ,— StlT^ pritinker Diwakar Judge \ /