1 S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.251/2007. State of Rajasthan Vs. Paramjit Singh & Ors. Date of Order :: 31st March 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Narendra Moolchandani, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned Public Prosecutor and having examined the impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2007 with reference to the material available on record, this Court is satisfied that acquittal of the accused-respondents of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bikaner cannot be said to be unjustified; and there does not appear any reasonable ground to interfere. The accused Paramjit Singh, Ram Kumar, and Balram respectively working as Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk and Class IV employee in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Division-I, Hanumangarh were proceeded against on the allegations that the accused Ram Kumar and Paramjit Singh demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant Sultan Singh (PW-2) for preparing the papers 2 relating to his water-turn about 7-8 days before the trap proceedings; and on 16.06.2003, the accused Ram Kumar again demanded the said amount of Rs.500/- and in pursuance to such demand at about 4:00 p.m. on 16.06.2003 at the aforesaid Hanumangarh office at the instance of the accused Ram Kumar, the complainant Sultan Singh made payment of Rs. 500/- to the accused Paramjit Singh, who received and handed over the amount to the co-accused Balram, who retained the same knowing it to be the amount of bribe. According to the prosecution, trap was led on 16.06.2003 after due proceedings and the accused made payment of the identified currency notes to the accused Paramjit Singh and such currency notes were delivered to the accused Balram from whom the same were recovered. The prosecution examined related witnesses to substantiate the allegations against the accused but then, the complainant Sultan Singh made statements contrary to the assertion in the complaint (Ex.P/26) and denied any accused having asked for iilegal gratification and his having stated the name of the accused persons at the asking of the officers of ACB; and also stated that his papers relating to water-turn had already been delivered on 06.06.2003 by some person of the office, who asked him to send payment of Rs. 500/- in the office. The complainant specifically denied Ram Kumar 3 having demanded any amount and also denied his having made payment to Paramjit Singh and instead, stated that he made the payment to Balram, Peon, who asked for the reason for such payment but he came out of office. It has clearly been found so far the accused Ram Kumar is concerned that neither any amount was recovered from him nor PW-3 Sagar Mal (Head Constable, ACB, Hanumangarh) and PW-5 (Vinod Kumar, Dy.S.P., ACB, Hanumangarh) have stated about the complainant having made payment to Balram or Paramjit Singh at the asking of Ram Kumar. In relation to the accused Paramjit Singh, the learned Sessions Judge has noted the cursory suggestion on the part of the prosecution that the amount was received by him but has found that the wash of his hands does not indicate touching of such notes for want of requisite colour. It has also been noticed that the story of the accused demanding the amount on 16.06.2003 does not appear probable because, admittedly, the complainant had received the requisite order on 06.06.2003 and no work was pending with the accused on 16.06.2003. The learned Sessions Judge has noted that of course the currency was found with Balrm but the evidence as available on record, particularly the statements of the complainant, were indicative of the circumstances in which the currency notes reached his pocket and the said Class IV 4 employee Balram was not dealing with any work of the complainant nor the prosecution has proved him having demanded any gratification. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has found that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate the charges and has acquitted the accused but at the same time has taken cognizance against the complainant, PW-2 Sultan Singh, who has turned hostile; and issued him notices for proceedings under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Looking to the overall circumstances of the case, the view as taken by the learned Sessions Judge remains the possible view of the matter and there does not appear any reasonable ground whereupon the order of acquittal could be considered for interference. The petition for leave to appeal is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/