_ ‘ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 403 of 1997 State of Madhya Pradesh “ VERSUS ESPONDENT Ram Krishna Deshmukh Al5PELLANT Shri Ravindra Agrawal PL for the appeHant/State As there ls no representation on behalf of the respondent Shrl Vlvek Snvastava Advocate who rs In the -panel of Hrgh Court Legal Servrce Committee Is appornted as CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 HI OF THE CODE OF r CRIMINAL PROCEDURE counsel to represent the respondent /accused A ‘ . J u D G M E N T (30.04.2010) The present appeal arlses out of the Judgment and order dated 21 11 1995 passed by Spemal Judge Ralpur In Specral Case No 82/1991 acqurttlng the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read Wlth Section 13 (2) of the Preventlon of Cprruptlon Act 21;. Facts of the case in brief are that atkthe relevant time the respondent/accused was working as Patwan of village Potiakala and it Is alleged that he demanded Rs 500/~ for mutation of the land of the complainant As the complainant M M Borker (PW 5) was not Willing to pay the bribe amount to the respondent he made complaint (EXP 3) before the Superintendent of Police Lokaukt Raipur on 21 11 1986 The pre trap Panchnama was conducted Vide Ex P 7 and thereafter the trap party proceeded towards the house ofthe respondent/accused and it is said that the bribe amount was given by the complainant and after receiVing the Signal the said bribe amount was seized from the table of the respondent/accused Vide Ex P 8 and after completing all the formalities including that of IPhenolphthalein test trap Panchnama (Ex P 10) was prepared an the same was sent for FS L and the report was received Vide JEX i P 11 Dehati Nalishi (Ex P 12) was registered and after R f ‘i ‘ @ rgistration of the F.I.R. (Ex. P-13), Sanction order Ex.P-14 was obtined and charge sheet was filed on 8.2.1991. 3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined 09 isses. Staement of the aused/rpondent was also rcorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. -1/ 4. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has cquitted the spondent/accuse for the offe’nce as mentioned abve. Hence the resnt appeal. ‘s 5. Counsel for the appellant/Stte subits tat on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the fact that the trap was successfully led by the Lokayukt department and all the witness have supported the prosecution case, the court below is wholly unjustified in acquitting the respondent/accused. 6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that the court below was fullyjustified in acquitting the respondent and there is no illegality in the same. He submits that finding of the court below cannotbe “a interfered with unless the same are perverse. 7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 8. From the record it appears that the respondent/accused was working as Patwari and was not competent to do the work of mutation, as per the provision of Land Revenue Code it is the ' Tahsildar who is the competent authority. From the fact it also l, appears that the application’for mutation was moved by thel complainant'before‘ the Tahsildar and in the present case the z independent witnesses ’of the trap party have not been examined by the prosecution. From the statement of the complainant M. M. ,. Borker (PW—5) and the Investigating Officer A.P. Dubey (PW-8), j there are material contradictions that according to the complainant the amount of bribe was paid outside the house whereas the ‘1 e a wtne t cces e a red o pe a m h _3, investigating Officer said that the same was given inside the house. Further the evidence is on record that the amount was kept on the table of the complainant and the defence of the accused is that he was inside the house and when he was called, he came out and shake hands with the complainant and therefore, the colour of hands was changed. Thus the view taken by the Court below in acquitting the respondent/accused appears to be well founded and no interference therewith is warranted. 9. Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing legal position that in an appeal- against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by the prosecution and the trial Court taking one View favoured the accused this Court Is of the consrdered opinion that reversmn of the findings of acqUIttal by the appellate Court taking the other possible View into consideration, is not permiSSIble in law and therefore the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent Iaccused of the offence under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. ’5‘ 3di- i, Pritinker Diwaker Judge