HIGH COURT OF CHHATISGARH T ATV BIAU LSPR Cr. App. No. 1853/ 1996 B: Hon’ble Shri Justce R.. anwar of M .P. (now The State Chhattisgarh) ‘ £ REsmNDENT ‘ ' Mohd. Rasool Qureshi. 03.2010 ost for pronouncement of Judgment '3 P 0 Sd/- RtL. Jhanwar "‘ Judge S i L Jh a JUDGMENT ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATIAR LSP - on AggealNm1853/96 SB; Hon’ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar APPELLANT The State of M.P. (NOW CG) T ‘RESPONDENT Versus Mohd. Rasool Qureshi, s/o Mohd. Izrail Qureshi, aged 28 years, Patwari Halka No. 152 Village K01 Police Station ,Kamjol, District Raipur OR LEAVE TO APPEAL UIS 378 I3! AND APPEAL UIS 378 11! OF€GR.P.C. E AppeaVrance: ‘‘ S RJ J Sm hri S... aiswal, Panel Lawyer for the'appellant/ State. t. Fouzia Mirza, counsel for the respondent. JUDGMENT (Delivered on3u0320 1 O) The appela/State has preferred, this appeal against the orr o acquittal dated 8.1.1996, passed by the Special Judge and First Additional essions Judge, Raipur in Sp’ecial Criminal Case No. 1 / 191, ereby, the learned AdditionafSessions Judge has acque te respondent of the charge under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) ead wit Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 98 fo ort he Act). i . heerlnd ower court'has acquitted the respondent due to of dee. PdisbelieV‘ed the prosecution Witnesses and cquitd the respondent on the ground that prosecution has not o t se eyond reasonable doubt. / prved is ca b / TSGH AT BIAUR APPLICATION F CRIMINAL lnt de f S 1 9 wh ittd h r h 18 (r sh t 2 Teare l l‘ack evinc I ate g$ 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that in 1987 respondent was posted as Patwarl at Vlllage Kot Complalnant Ramknpal Dubey was re51dent of Vlllage Mana Kom where he has h1s agr1cu1tura1 land. The complamant asked the respondent- Patwan to supply the copy of Khasra Panchshala, but he did not give it and demanded Rs. 1800/ - from the complainant for supplying the copy. A conversation took place v‘vherein it was agreed to pay Rs.900/- for supplying the copy to him The complainant told that he W111 pay the money later Then respondent gave the copy of Khasra Panchshala to the complainant Thereafter the complalnant told i the respondent to Show the land to the purchaser Then the respondent asked for Rs 900/ which was settled before g1v1ng the l copy of Khasra Panchshala. On 7.7. 1987, complainant went to the vigilance office and lodged report EX.P/ 12 to the Lokayukt as he didnot want to give illegal gratification to the respondent. On the report of the complainant, a trap party was [arranged and preliminary Panchnama was prepared vide EX. P/ 13. Complainant gave Rs.900/— in denomination of Rs.100/— each and numbers of the currency notes were recordedl‘in the preliminary panchnama. Demonstration of chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was done. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes. Directions were given to the complainant that before giving the. money to the accused, he should not shake hands with any body and after giving the garrency notes to the accused; he will give signal to the trap party. Thereafter, the trap party left for the incident spot. Patras Tirky (PW—8) and S.L. Dagla (PW-9), Ramprakash Tiwari (PW-10), B.I.R.Naidu (PW—11) were the members of the trap party. Thecomplainant went to the house of the respondent and gave him Rs.900/j, thereafter, he signalled the trap party. l The trap party reached the spot and after giving introduction, caught the respondent and gasked about money. Then the respondent told them that money is on the cot situated 1 V l E)? inside the room. Money was seized and solution 9f Sodium Carbonate was prepared, hands of the accused/respondent were dipped in it, currency notes were also dipped in the solution, which turned pink. A separate solution of sodium carbonate was also prepared, in which, hands of rnembers of the trap party were dipped, which turned pink. Numbers of currency notes were tallied with the notes recorded in the preliminary panchnama, the sa‘me were identical tor that notes. After'completion of necessary u legal formalities, seizure was made vide Ex. P/ 16. Dehati Nalishi was recorded vide Ex. P/ 17. Report was recorded at zero. Thereafter, F.I.R. was lodged, Seized articles were sent to F.S.L. for their chemical analysis. Permission for prosecution was obtained vide Ex. P/ 19. Copy of Khasra panchshala is EX P/ 1. Photocopy of registry of land is EX. P/2. Seizure memo-”is EX. P/ 11. Final panchnama is EX.VP/ 14. Memorandum of Collector is Ex. P/ 15. 4. After Completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court‘of Special Judge, Raipur, who framed charges under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d)/ 13 4(2) of the Act and the same was g read over and explained to the accused/respondent. The ccused/respondent abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 5. The learned Special Judge, after evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel=for respective parties, acquitted the respondent of the aforementioned charges. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgment impugned and record of the Specia CriminalECase. :7. Learned counsel for the State/appellant argued that there :was ample evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution against tax ' r\-\i\ v _ , ,. ,. ..,-,.,,... hm"... As.\\ i i L i a l . the respondent, despite it the learned Special Judge had acquitted ¢ the respondent and thereby eommitted illegaiity. 8 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused/ respondent supported the judgment of acquittal of the respondent. 9. After perusal of the evidence of H.B. Singh (PW—1), Tehsildar, has stated about the procedure relating to the measurement of lapd first, after takin’g order from Revenue Officer or Tehsildar, Patwari can measure the land and second, fees shall be paid before the Revenue Officer, then the Revenue Inspector Will do the ‘ measurement of land. Patwari has no right tosmeasure the land Without takirigorder from the concerned officer. 10. It is clear from the evidence of respondent/accused that he was Patwari and was a Government Servant. Ramkripal Dubey (PW-3) has stated that respondent was Patwari in his village. He sold 3 acres of land to Liladhar and Sanau and for that he wanted a copy of Khasra'Panchshala from the PatWari, therefore, he went to him. The respondent, demanded Rs.900/- from him as illegal gratification to supply the copy He has stated in his examination n chlef para 2 that he was not havmg money at the time when the V respondent demanded money from him, therefore, he could not give money to him even then the respondent has given the copy of Khasra panchshala to him. At the time of giVing copy, complainant has not paid any money to the respondent. 11'. It is evident from the statement of the complainant— Ramkripal Dubey that after giving the copy of khasra, respondent used to ask for money On 5 7 87 again the respondent asked for I money, then he told him to measure the land The respondent told him first give money then he W111 measure the land On 7 7 1987 the complainant reported the matter to the Lokayukt because he did not wantsto give money to the respondent and thereafter trap J 5 i ? 1 party was arranged and he was instructed to give Rs.900/- to the 0 respondent. After. making demonstration of sodium carbonate i solution and giving necessary instructions to the complainant trap party proceeded for the incident place. Thereafter, as per instructions, the complainant gave money to the respondent and signalled the trap party and trap party reached the spot and caught the respondent. Dy‘pCollector- Tirky and S.L. Dagla‘ were also sent with him; to hear the conversation between the I "e complainant ‘ . and respondent. 12. After reaching village Kot, he and Ramprakash Tiwari went to the house of Patwari—respondent. Patwari came out of the house and called them inside the house. They went inside and sat on the cot Then the complainant gave money to the respondent. When the respondent took money and counted the same then he ’ Signalled the trap party, on which trap party reached the spot and caught the respondent and currency notes were seized After making necessary demonstrations, it was found that the numbers of currency notes were talliedwitn the numbers, recorded 1n the preliminary panchnama and seizure was made. He stated that all procedure was made before him. In cross examination para 21 he stated that when he went to the respondent, the respondent asked for money, at that place nobody was present. 13. It is evident from the statement of the complainant that money was not given to the respondentiand respondent gave the copy of khasra number before taking money then nothing remains and why the Patwari W111 ask for money after g1Ving the copy of khasra He might not supply the copy Without taking money, if made the demand of money In his statement he has stated that when Ramprakash Tiwari went With him, he gave illegal gratification to the respondent. Ramprakash Tiwari (PW 10) has no stated that respondent demanded money. He only stated that § a t @9 According to the i complainant’s statement at the time of demand of money, nobody was present. According to the statements of B.I.R. Naidu and S.L. Dagla, they have not: heard ithe conversation between the complainant and the respondent. They are the Witnesses of procedure, which was done after trapping the respondent. Money ’ was recovered from the co‘t and not from the hands or pocket or from the body of the gespondent. u . ' In this way, it is clear from the above statements that the 14. complainant wanted a copy of khasra number, which the rESpondenf has already provided to him before giving money to him. Then it is not possible that after giving the copy of khasra to the complainant, why respondent demanded money from the complainant. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the demand of mOney, but prosecution has failed to proved it. When the complainant wanted to measure his land at that time also, th respondent had not demanded money He only asked for the money, which was settled before prov1dmg the copy of Khasra Panchshala. The statement of the complainant 1s not rehable that the respondent had demanded money from him and he has given ‘money to the respondent. Thus, it is clear from the statement of 5H.B.Singh‘ P.W.1 that Patwari has no right to measure the viiand without taking permission of the order of the concerned officer, and therefore, the V question for demanding money does not arise for this purpose It 1s also ev1dent from the statement of the complainant Ramkripal Dubey that at the time of demanding money nobody was present whereas according to the prosecutlon Ramprakash Tlwari was present. In that View of the Hmatter, 1f nobody was present at the time. of demanding ‘money, then the statement of Ramprkash Tiwari that he Was present also becomes suspicious. money was given to the complainant. 15. Even then e amprakash Tivvari has not stated that money was dgmanded by the respondent and no other Witnesses have stated about demand of money. Thus, it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove the demand of money. The learned lower Court did not err in disbelieving the statement of Witnesses in particular statement of the complainant. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the lower Court is not perverse and illegal Learned lower Court. has rightly acquitted the respondent w . 16. In an appeal against acquittal if two Views on the ‘ prosecution ev1dence are poss1ble and the trial Court has taken onAe View favourable to the accused persons, then 1t Will not be permissxble for the appellate Court to reverse the finding of acquittal by taking the other poss1ble Vlew on the prosecution ev1dence It was held by the Apex Court 1n V N Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 2667 that if two Views are pos31b1 f on the ev1dence adduced in the case, one pOinting to the gullt o e the accused and other to his innocence, the View which is favourable to the accused should, be adopted. The Apex Court further said that the paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. The Apex Court referred to the deciSions rendered in the matter of Bhagwan Singh and others Vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2002 (2) Supreme 567 It was further held that the princ1ple t6 be followed by the Appellate Court cons1denng the appeal against the Judgment of acquittal is~ to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clear unreasonable and relevant and convincing material have been unjustifiably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling reason for interference. The same view has been dealt in the matter of Budh Singh and others Vs.‘State of U.P., (2006) 9 SCC 731. R . i i 17 In Nepal Singh Vs State of Haryana, decided in Criminal Appeal No 383 of 2002 on 24 4 2009 the Apex Court Wh1le deahng w1th the acqu1tta1 of an accused has further held that 1t cannot however be forgotten that 1n case of acqu1tta1 there 1s a double presumpuon 1n favour of the accused. F1rstly, the presumptlon of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminalijurisprudence that every person should be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved to be guilty by a Competent Court of‘law Secondly, the accused havmg secured an acqu1tta1 the presumptlon of his innocence 1s certainly not weakened b t emforced reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court i l §18.V In the facts and circumstances of the case and in View of the decisions (supra), rendered by the Supreme Court -I am of the View that the prosecution has not been able to prove the gullt of the respondent under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d)/ 13 (2) of the Act The learned Trial Court has not erred 1n acqu1tt1ng the respondent under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d)/ 13 (2) of the Act. Thus, the lacquittal of the respondent is Well merited and does not call for any * (interference. J, . £19. ‘In the result, the appeal being deVoid of substance is liable (to be and is accordingly dismissed. l i /— l Sd ’ Jhanwar ud Jge y /