HIGH COURT CHATTISGAR BILASPUR Criminal‘Agggal No.119'4l19s9 State of Madhya Piadesh (now Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Vgay Kumar, aged about 0 years, Son of Banwanlal Jam, Food inspector, R/o Ch1kh11 Rajnandgaon, Tahsnl and Dlsmct — RaJnandgaon (C G) APPLICANT NON-Arpucm w- Shn Arun Sac, Govt Advocate for the Stats] appellant. Shrr P. Diwakar, Sr. Advocatg w1th Shn R.K Jam, Cdunsel for fhs vespondeut. mnemsk'r ‘ (22.03 2007) SUN“. KUMAR SIN% J. 1. On a leave being granted under §ecnon 378(3) of the ‘Code of Cnmmal Proceduve, the State has filed 1111s appeal agairist the judgnent of acquittal dated 8‘31 of June 1989 passed in Spgcial Case No.7/s7 by the special Judge, Ragnandgaon (M P) ’ 2. The case of the pmsecuuon ts that m the year 1986 the respondent was posted as Food Inspector, Dongargarh and p was a public sewant for the purposes of Qections 5(1) (d) and 5 ’ i (2) of the Prevenhon of Corruphon Act (for short “the Act”) The complainant namely Bhuwanlal (PW 1) was a nulk vendor On 20 O6 1986 he made a complaint to the Supermtendent of Pohce (Specxal Pohoe Eetabhshment), Ralpur auegmg that the xespondent had called 111m 2—3 hmes m Ins house at Dongargarh and he demanded RS 300] {mm hun making a threat that 1f the amount 1s not pmd to hnn, he would oollect the sample of milk.’ On the said teport, a trap was organized ,WW‘HHI _ OF HH 4 _ Criminal Appeal No.1 194/ 1989 [Q “2" and the trap party, consish'ng of Inspector - G.P. 'I‘ripathi (FW— 9), NaibTahsildar -— J.M. Shukla (PW-2), Superimtndent Land Record -— A.K. Khan and Constable — B. Laxmaiya’ (PW—6), made a trap While giving Rs.300/- as the illegal gra11£ca1ion to the mspondent 'by Bhuwanlal (PW-1). It is stated that the currency notes for RS300] - were heated, with phenolphthalein powder and were handed. over to the complainant for glvmg it to the respondent, which, according to the prosecution, was handed over to him by Bhuwanlal and when a search of the house, after such giving and. taking, was made by the trap party, the currency notes were tbund on the top of the-Almirah inside the house of the respondent. Aiier completion of the formalities of phenolphthalein test etc, the investigation was completed. and then after obtaining a sanction hum the Government under Section 6(1) (c) of the Act)for prosecution of the Ie’spondentfaccused, charge sheet was nled against him. 3.‘ At the trial, as stated above, charges were named under &ction 5( 1) (d) read with Section S (2) of the Act to which the respondent denied, therefore, the evidence of pmsecution witnesses were recorded and after completion, of the tlial, the respondent was acquitted, 4. The Special Court acquitted. the respondent mainly on the ground that the prosecution could not establish that the, Iespondent by use of corrupt and illegal means orby abusing his position as a public servant, obtained illegal. gratihcation of 'Rs.300/- from the complainant. The Special Court disbelieved the testimony of Bhuwanlal‘ (PW—l.) on various grounds. The first ground for disbelieving his testimony was the material contradictions in his evidence as indicated vide para 15 of the impugned judgment. The two contradictions are — (i) though in his complaint this witness has stated that he was selling milk- at the relevant time, but in his evidence’he denied that he was selling milk' during that period; (ii) in his evidence, he had ,\%‘k V w ma a Criminal Appeal No.1 194/ 1989 ”5" stated that the accused first met with him on 18/6/86 when the demand, of money was made, but in his poiice case diary“ statement, he had stated that accused had met him 2 or 3 months before the date of trap‘ The Special Court took the View that, if the accused had wally met with him 2 or 3 months before the date of trap, he would have not kept silence all this time and would have reported the matter earlier, therefote, the version of Bhunwanlal (PW- 1) that the accused had met with him and demanded money becomes doubtful. The Special Court further held that on theevidence of this witness, it appears that on the date of trap, he had reached. the house of the Iespondent, enured straight in the house and came out h'om the house immediately Within a few seconds, however, in para_73 of the deposition of this witness, it comes that Tin the, mom, he sat on a bench lying in the room and accordingly it assheld that in 2 seconds, it was not possible for a man to go and come back h‘om the house after giving bribe to a person. The Special Court further held that in para 60 of the deposition of this witness, he had. stated that the respondent met him outside his house, whereas, this fact was notu incorporated in his case diary statement nor the fact that respondent had. asked him to sit‘ on the. bench was incorporated therein. ’l‘he Special Court also observed that Bhuwanlal (PW— 1) had contended that at the time of trap, the respondent was present in his drawing room all alone and he gave money to him, which he kept on the top of the Almirah, Where a register was also lying and in the said situation, it appeals more suspicious as to what made the accused to put the currency notes on the top of the almirah and not to keep it in his pocket or inside the almirah Taking all this cilcumstances about the conduct of this witness, Bhuwanlal (PW- 1), the Special Court held that all thesecitcumstances raise a suspicion about his ’claim that the accused after w \ ég Criminal Appeal No.1 194/ 1989 , q _ mciving the currency notes fm him kep tha on he op of the Ahnjrah. 5. Te ersi of huwaal (P- 1) s also en tesd, in ht of th eviden of other Witness of nap rty n mhmely, afer g reasons ‘r‘djshelving te teimony of this Witness, it as been hld y the Specal Court that rly the circumstances, which ed to tra are suspiciou and te factum of‘ hning: over th mney the accused s also suspico and finy, it s hd, he ccludin pont no. that it has not een pmved ta accused resoden otned. RS00] - or any the unt hum Bhunanl (P- 1 egal tin‘n. 6. . The Apex Court held the matter o vide paxa 9, that a atter of ppl agnst acquta e High ot doe not ordarily se ase jgn of acquittl n a ca to b lto o ob e lwi ud acquia f o de h ntr evde ndi o hth te ie t ur r pese th Weer h vws of the rial Cot wee rver or oerwise unsusinable. It is lso entitle to csir as to Whe in arrving at finn of fact, the tri ourt has ae to ta into onsideration admisi evince and has taken into c i ot ec nra t Siilarly, rng placing of burden of pro may also be sct f siny th Al C 7. It was further held by the Ax t n th matter of that ther is no embargo n. the Appellate Cort revieing the evidenc on ich an order f acquitt is based. Gerly, the order of cmttal shall nt e interfered with because the presumption of cence ‘o‘f he accuse is furr i \v\ h von Bnnl W ha be te lig e ce se pa ad at t glvm foie h st h e b i fist l p s h ad e o ta i ius all wa el wil ong i 1, b ht [pnt bai 3 or amo Wlaé W ) as ill graticao in f Bud]: Sim and others vs. mate of U.P.V[2006) 9 3.6.6. 731, jn m aea ai itl, th Cur s in t id a udmet a i se where w views are possile, ahugh the View of 'the Appellate Couxt» is a mte prable on. However, while deaing’th a jgment of ttl, it is ree t consir te eie ienc on Iecord so as to arrive at a iing as t ta a d onde hetr i a dig al C fild ke c sble de onsideration evdence brugh on rord cotry o law. m wo of a ubje matter o the crut of e ppelate ourt. pe Cour i e V.N. Ratheesh vs. state of Kerala AIR 2006 S.C. 2667 e o u w e up wh o al enal aq o b inno t d the \ t\\ / J / 1 e m t n t t \ . Q Criminal Apyeal No.1194l 1989 rx ‘3‘ '§fr \ shengthened. by acquittal. The Apax Court said that 1hr: golden thread which runs thmugh the web of administmtion 0f . jusiice in criminal cases is that if two views arc possible on the evidence adduced in the case; one pointing to the guilt of thc accused and other to his innoccncc, the View which is favouxablc 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. A miscarriage of justice which may arise dam acquittal of the guilt is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case Where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to m-appxeciate the evidence Where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused really committed any offence or not. The Apex Court referred to the decisions rendered in the matter of Bhgmn Sing and others vs. $tate of Madhxa Pradesh (200212} Supreme 567}. It was further held that the principle to he followed by Appellate Court considering 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 clearly unreasonable and relevant and convincing materials have been unjustinably eliminated in the process, it is a compelling mason for interference. The Apex Court also referred to many decisions on this point, which are Shivaii Sahaln'ao Bobade and Ant. V. state of Maharashtra (AIR'1973 8C 2622L Ramesh Bahulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996 (41 supreme 167}, Jaswaut Sigh v. state of Harlana (2000 (3] sugeme 33g), R11 Klshore Jha v. must Bthar and others {2003 (7) supreme '152 mate of Nu ab vs. Karnall s 2003/ 5 8n eme 508) and State of Punjab v. Pohla Sim and Ant. (€003 m Supreme 1’7). 8. lfwe examine the facts and circumstances of this case i light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases K NM t n x Criminal Apyeal No.1194l 1989 ,6— refermd. to above, firstly, it ould ppear that the View taken by the Special Court that the testimony of huwanlal (PW— 1) appers to be ntrustwort oes nt ppoar to ompletely unreasonable, hence, he same ca b sai o probable View whch may e one of the ssibk views, ch, he Spcial Court has adapted. Moreover, it aso does not appea to me a case, in which e dmissible evine i gnore or a case where terference teqe t prevent the cage of June e ah lm and ttal In w1t dm rec m i r lea ub rti elt 's h justily eiminated the process o appreciation for arriving at a just n proper decision. 9. I h on of t Cour the pe Court ha taken a w an has recorde a nng, wh appears to be of- te osl w w could, ave been aken a Court of law in e facts an circumstances of this case and I do not fin any reason t interfere with such a finding ecorded b the trial Court n a judgment hich as delived b it a back as i the year 19 or the allege offce sai to hav been comitted i he year v10. Ther is no erit i the appea tiled by he State ’l‘he sme deserves to be ismissed and s acrdingly smissed. The udgmen of acuitta passed by the pecial rt is coirmed. / In ls mrd o misma sc There ar a no compelg substan reasons to terfere h such a ting orded by the al Court, when t does not appea to be crly nreasonale pacularly when no revan and convincing material ave been unEab l in f HA Sci/- UNIL KUMAR SIHA Judge w a B a uhy d o a be c t n e d t a i b po whi t e l r , eithr a dec s id ad n te pinio his t Qmal s v1e d d dm hic one h ps1be Vies hich h t by th d d o r y i w w re y s n 98 f d en d e m n t 1986. e m n l t . a d i co di jt ql S Cou nf S N f \