1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.359/2007 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Shravan Lal Meena) S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.6.2006 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE, SESSIONS COURT, P.C. ACT, UDAIPUR IN SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.6/2002. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12th August, 2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEO NARAYAN THANVI Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor. Mr. S.G. Ojha for the accused-respondent. BY THE COURT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal under Section 7 & Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, P.C. Act, Udaipur dated 14.6.2006. 2. 2. The prosecution case is that on 9.4.01, one Nanu Ram Banjara filed a report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhilwara, that on 6.4.01, when he was going on his motor-cycle bearing No.RJ 09-1 M 4419, he was stopped by Shravan Lal Meena, the In-charge of Police Chowki, Mangrope, who is the present accused respondent, and demanded papers of the vehicle. He also said that unless Rs.700/- are paid, he will file challan against him. Thereafter, he agreed for Rs.500/- and to bring them on 9.4.01. The trap was arranged. Witnesses were called and recovery of Rs.500/- was made, containing five notes of Rs.100/- each, which were initialled by the Addl. Superintendent of Police and were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The notes were kept in the right side pocket of the shirt of the complainant and thereafter at the quarter of accused, complainant went and handed over to accused, who put them on his box. Both the hands of accused were washed, which came to be of light pink colour. Thereafter, the challan was filed. Accused was charged for offence under Section 7 & Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which, he pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Accused produced two witnesses in his defence. 3. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judge acquitted the accused respondent. 3. 4. Having re-appreciated the evidence, it appears that the finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Judge is well reasoned, specially, on the ground that the complaint was drafted by one Ladu Ram and this Ladu Ram has not been produced by the prosecution. This is Ladu Ram, from whom, the verification of recovered notes was to be made. Even, there are no signatures of Ladu Ram on the running note. He was the best witness to verify about the demand of illegal gratification. 5. In addition to this, the prosecution has not produced the trap record and the cassette with regard to the conversation between the complainant and the accused. 6. In the complaint Ex.P-1, it is stated that it was the complainant, who was going on the motor-cycle on 6.4.01, but in the court evidence, complainant Nanu Ram PW-1 has stated in the cross examination that on 6.4.01, his son Amar Chand was going to Bhilwara on his motor cycle. It was his son, who was stopped by the police on motor cycle at Mangrope Chowki, and, he reached later on, when the vehicle was seized. This is a major contradiction as to who was driving the vehicle, and from whom the police has seized the documents. The checking memo Ex.P-6 reveals that there are signatures of Amar Chand from A to B on it and there is no signature of complainant Nanu Ram. 4. This falsifies the version of complainant that he was driving the vehicle on 6.4.01. 7. It is apparent from the record that challan was filed on 6.4.01 and entry to this effect was made at Police Station Hamirgarh on 8.4.01 vide Ex.P-16, which is the Roznamcha register of Police Station, Hamirgarh. It has been stated by Hanuman Singh PW-7 that the challan was sent with the complainant on 8.4.01 for compounding the same to the Dy. Superintendent of Police by calling the concerned party. When the challan was filed on 6.4.01, and it was sent to the Dy. Superintendent of Police for compounding by calling the concerned party on 8.4.01, then it is impossible that any demand of Rs.500/- can be made on 9.4.01, specially when accused explained to the trap party. 8. The learned trial Judge has rightly observed that these circumstances reveal that the story of the prosecution regarding demand and of pending work is contradictory and creates heavy doubt. The learned trial court has also observed that the motor cycle, the challan of which was prepared on 6.4.01 was already handed over to the complainant on the very day and, he was prepare to come for compounding the offence, which shows, that this trap has been arranged with some ulterior motive at the 5. behest of the complainant, and the learned trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that accused respondent has not committed any offence. 9. Consequently, this appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal under Section 7 & Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act passed by the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court, Prevention of Corruption Act, Udaipur dated 14.6.2006 is confirmed. Accused respondent is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. (DEO NARAYAN THANVI), J. ms rathore