COUm'FEREXEMPTED 8Y NOTIFICATION N0.998WD-387 XXI- B/C.G./05 AS SPEGIREO IN SCHEfiULE IS H OF THE COURT FEES ACT 1870. 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l CR. M. P. N0. cf ^ / ^t ACQUITTALAPPEAL No. 9^ j0 / 2009 APPLICANT/ APPELLANT ^ .sf^ NON-APPLICANT RESPONDENT..- ~^^.. ^.^^.A .siA-''' •sy State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Special Police Establishment, Lok Ayzikta Office, Bastar Division, Jagdalpur. VERSUS Shankhdhar Dwivedi, S/o S.P. Dwivedi, Aged about -30 years, Sub Inspector, S.H.O., P.S. Bijapur, Permanent address - Village Khaira, P.S. Civil Lines, Rewa, Dista-ict Rewa (MP) APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER .^<_ _„_ -___ -_ -_- SEGTION 378(1) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURF 1973 S^Taf'E» Tit^1» .7VVCt.f7vt^it'SSl ia%»¥^Srl¥K?T&?'1i? ; Sti%^^'SLfS/ i,¥lS^.. t^U^'i'i^ffif jij versus N-APPUCAK'T State of Cb.hattisgarh SrianklidhEu- Dwivedi Sliri Praveen Das, Dy. G.A. for fhe. State/'appiicant. 37S!31,&MEmOOF_A?PEALyNDISSEC:T!0¥_378(l) (24.02.20101 Heard on adniissiou. T'be preseat petition filed u-nder Section 378(3) of tlle Cr.P.C. is directed asainst the us.pusned onier aBU judginent dated 15.12.2008 passed by the SpeciaS Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Soutii Bastar, Dantewads, ia Special Case N0. 3/2003 whereby acquittin.g the respondeat for the alleged offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Case ofthe prosecution ia briefis that at the relevant time the respondent/accused was working as Station House Officer, P.S. Bija.pur. On 22.3.2000 a written complaint Ex.P/1 was niade by the coiaplaiaant Sa3im Hai (P.W.-2) before the office of Loka}-ukta, Jagdalpur mentioning in it fb.at the coiaplamt was iaa.de against him. by P.W.-4 Devarthi Bai and the acciised had deiiianded Rs. 5,000 for not taking aiiy action a.gamst the coinplamaut. After receiviag the coiuplauit preparation of trap was m.ade vide Ex.P/2 aad ttie trap was laid on 26.3.2000. It is furfher aUeged tliat 40 currencv notes of Rs.50 denoiniaations which were treated v>~ith the Phenopthylene powder tn. order te lay trap however the trap could not be inaterialized as when the trap partt7 slone wifSl fbe coiarilauiant reached thc house offhe accused/respondent, he was not present. It is also alleged tliat tbereafter on 27.3.2000 aiid 28.3.2000 also fhe attem.pt was luade to trap the accused/respondent however on Tliese dates also fhe said trap could Qot be niaterialized as tbe respondent/accused had gone on a naxalite operation. Thereafter the amount of Rs. 2,000 was retiimed to the coiaplaiaant on Supiirdnama. However on the basis of the report, Cmne No. 51/2000 was registered against fhe accused on 31.3.2000. It is alleged fhat ttte accused had demanded the itlegal gratification of Rs. 5,000, out ofwhich he had accepted Rs. 4,000 and has coiiLmitted the offence puiushabie linder Section 7 of the Preventiou of Corruption Act. After investigation, the clialiaii was filed. 3. So as to hold the acczised/i^spondent giiilt)', the prosecution has examin.ed as maiiy as nine witaesses. Stateiuent of fb.e accused/respondent was also recorded uiider Section 313 of fh.e Code of Crimuial Procedure ia which he denied the charges leveled agaiast him a&d pleaded his iniiocence and false iiaplication ia fhe case. ^. 4. After elaborately considering the entire evidence, the Court below has acquitted the accused/respondent on fhe ;round that fhe accused/respondentwas not present ia the police station, the traiiscription of the deinand as laade by 1iim was not clear and it could not be established that the deinand v.7as inade, tbe trap could not be niateriafized and the notes were retumed and once fhe deiuaa.d and acceptauce has not been proved by the prosecution the acciised is entifled for acquitt.al. The Court below has disbelieved the stateinent of tlie prosecution witaesses while passin.g the unpugned judgnient. 5. I have gone fhroug3i ffae evidence aad the iaipugiied judgitient. In fhe present case neither the prosecution bas established the demaad or acceptance of any ffiegal gratification nor even the trap could be inade aad ui absence of aay cogent niaterial iinder no circuinstaaces fhe ^ accused/respondent can be convicted. I find no reason to m.terfere with fhe weU reasoned order of the Court below. 6. Moreover, after appreciation of the evidence, fh.e Court beiow bas arrived to a particular conclusion of acqiutting fhe accused/respondent Fui-thermore, fhe present is a case against acquittal where law is weU. settled in relation to cases agaiust acquittal. !n a petition. against acquittal if two views are possible on tb.e basis of fhe evidence ied by the prosecution and fhe trial Court takiui one view favoured fhe accused, reversion of ftie findines of acquittal by fhe appeUate Court taking fhe other possible view uito consideration is not permissible in law, this Court is of the view that the judgiaent impugned acquitting the accused/respondents oftb.e offence as atleged agaiast flieni is just and proper baviag no rooai for interference in this petition. The saiae is accordiagly dismissed. ^^Sraksl iudge