i! 1 ;1 !; !l1 c, TN THE HTGR COITRT OF .nTnTC.-VEU&E-a^8TT.ASPTTi(C,C. -%lffic N0<'^' OF:200t ^^—ts1 'c-^ -\*—1/' Applicant/Appe!!ant ^ G-s .<; attisearh P p ^-ahit! Ageu aDom 4? vears S/o S-a-Sahu oceiimiiioii; i a!ssiiuar Dongargaon, Rajnantisaon T'"!' .P- ?^»£-<-+T? iaiil. ix- l^iiiit.lxrt' tChliiittlsaarii) APPLiCATiON FOR GRANT OF LEA.VE 10 - ii-'i-2;-' A TTYi'ai.'R S1<1moN 3"S'3^ ANTS MEMO OF APPEAT. Li..'LUl':K ;>EL'llUi> ^7SUj Uf IM.". ^.OUiL ijr ^Xli>ll^-: pn.OCF.TO ~RF. i9'T3. APPEl-t-ANT RESRONDENT HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Acquittal Appeal No. 151of2009 State df Chhattisgarh VERSUS R.P.Sahu -S-S^sMs' "i;';^ ;;•:•' ^SI-irifAkl'titMishraDy. GA?f6r the appellant/State. ;; "] y; ^ ; i ^;, Shri AdilMinhazcouhsel for the respondent/accused. < ; GRfWNAL ARPEALiUNbERSECTlON 378 (1) OF THE CODE OF N\:;;''H^^K;:^:-.^^'^cra ^:..;1-' .'. ...—'; JUDGIVIENT:.'.. '^ ;' .\.^;;''.:;:.?. -.^y^Sv:' .-<^s^&;^.:::';'&:f1^:^' .'"'^''i',7'-^: K.rii3:1 "s^iapP®alh^fieesR.ffle^againstthejudgmenfand^drcler^^ ;; 2.7,g ltB^sged fc»ythe SBe^Mi4t^,^glliiK9o^ :S[^cjat^a^|5ilE>.;" ^/2g^^i;E[^Hg.ttlS i"^pOf^r^<^^^<8,^|:Qfi|£F1^3HB^ S|:eJH<^^3f<2)RftHe'F'res^ttoBWS6tr8|>tiboA^ :WS 'sFacts of;; tH8?^G^se .ia 'bci^f are, thatAafcs .tliegNevaht^trne; tespondent/ac(Suseel ?was Myorkirig'^ as I®%iNar^^8(^|pdste^ a^ ^IDoBgiarga^). On 2.6^1 '89&:a^ntten "c6mp|aint:Ex^^iwa&made bytiiie ct^plainanf^ 'nahi6^?^Wie^%; :Das-^< :Mar^^ respc^denVaccusealyua&i^rTrai'iclmgR^^ \ ancegtral agrieultural ,landKThis applieation vtfas made bver;tfJ&&,.?.llangi; : (PW-11) ^ the inspe<^ ^kayukf^^wcl^fe cas^ettes^n^ cbm^lainaF w^;Ex.P-3;^iw^atH3nfe®tweienthe,^ resporKient/aec^^d^wfflS reco^l^^ranscrNi°rt:^Q^ 7;6.1999 trap^ party \ras?cOBstityted^;a^ ^wifnesses namely V.D. Tivrati <F%^^ari<:i^.R.Khat^ire (PVV-^VWitteri? complaint ^; P-1;^ssho\wri^^tBein^epend^^i^ dem6rt§frafed^to^tl m^tiy.;apF^tB&:;^ GUFrency^note& (rf^W^^NB^ ^regporicterrt/ac<Msei3^J:h^c^ office ofthe respondenyac(;used?g[ri(yaft^givingthert?ribea^ he gave asignal to the trap party on which the trap party entered the office of the respondent/accused and the bribe amount was recovered ii-'-"^c from his shirt pocket. Seizure Panchnama Ex. P-80 was prepared and after obtaining sanction vide Ex. P-83 and completing all the formalities the chargesheet was filed on 10.1.2000. 3. So as to prove the guilt of the respondent/accused the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegation made against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. The respondent/accused has taken a defencethatbribe amount was kept by the complainant on his dais and immediately after seeing the same, he had asked as towho had kept the said amount. Other defence taken by the respondent/accused is that he had already passed the order as per the order of the SDO in respect of partition of the agricultural land of the complainant on 25.5.1999 and therefore the question of demand of bribe does not arise. This apart, three witnesses namely Chetan Das Sahu (DW-1), Vijay Kumar (DW-2) and Bharat Singh (DW-3) havealso been examined by the defence in support of its case. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties the Court below hasacquitted the respondent/accused ofthe charges levelled against him by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellant/State submits that in spite of the overwhelming material available on record in favour of the prosecution, the Court below has committed an error in ignoring the same and acquitting the respondent/accused of the charge levelled against him by the judgment impugned. He submits that the bribe amount was recovered from the shirt pocket of the respondenVaccused, phenolphthalein test proved positive and the FSL report Ex. P-88 is also positive and supports the case of the prosecution. He submits that on the date of trap, the case was pending in the Court of the respondent and therefore there was strong motive of demand of bribe. B, On the other hand counsel for the respondenVaccused supports the judgment impugned and submits that the Court below has taken into considerationeach and every aspect of the matter and therefore the .! t-'l p? ^'•^^^ IL ^•^^:^$^^^^-^ —.^^^ judgment impugned being based on the material available on record is fully justified and does not call for any interference in this appeal. He submits that there was no occasion for the respondent/accused to demand bribe because at the first instance the case of thecomplainant was dismissed and said order was challenged before the SDO and after allowing the said appeal the matter was remanded back to the respondent with a direction to effect partition and ultimately on 25.5.1999 the order for partition was passed by the respondent/accused and on the date of incident no lis was pending in the Court. He submits that demand has not been proved by the prosecution and only the bald allegations have been made against him. He submits that the conversation between the complainant and the respondent/accused in the tape recorder was not audible which has been admitted by V.D. Tiwari (PW-6) one of the witnesses to the trap. He submits that once the recorded conversation itself is not audible, entire veracity of the same goes. He submits that it has been admitted by the complainantthat he was not aware as to how the tape recorder was to be operated. In respect of acceptance of bribe amount he submits that it was never handed over to the respondent/accused and was kept on the dais and on seeing the same the respondent/accused had enquired as to who had kept it, which has been clarified by Hemuram Dewangan (PW-3) who was working as clerk in the office ofthe respondent/accused and also the defence witness who was present in the office of the respondent/accused. He submits that even the complainant has admitted that the amount was kept on the dais and thereafter he returned back. Counsel for the respondent/accused referred to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the statement of the complainant where he has categorically admitted that without talking to the respondent/accused he kept the amount on the dais and returned back. He submits that as per the case of the prosecution the amount was recovered by V.D. Tiwari (PW-6) from the shirt pocket of the respondent/accused whereas in the Court statement of this witness he has denied the same and stated that it was one Sahu who had done this. He submits that the complainant has also been declared hostile and in the absence of any other legally admissible evidence the respondent/accused cannot be convicted. ^i:-- •t^^l^s'i -^- 7. The Court below acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge levelled against him on the following grounds: (i) That the respondent/accused had no reason to demand the bribe amount as no work of the complainant was pending with him. (ii) That the money was simply put on the dais without the knowledge ofthe respondent/accused. (iii) That when the accused/respondentwas making an enquiry from the Patwari as to who had put the bribe amount on the dais, the trap party entered in his office and when he was to shake hand with them, he had put the said amount in his pocket and thus the money was seized from him. 8. Thus minute examination of the material available on record goes to show that the findings of the Court below based on the grounds adumbrated above appear to be fully justified. This Court does not see any infirmity or illegality in the same. Furthermore, being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible on the basisof evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accused, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissiblein law and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to bedismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. - Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Jq4••^•^ e>-