Ii I’ mumguggym RIMINAL APML No. - ' 3‘ ‘ 4/199 APmLmmn THE Ponce: 5mm SrATION OF mp. $PECIAL THROUGH POLICE ESTABLISMNT 10K; AYYUKTA OFFICE. MADHM ' PRAEESH, BHOPAL UNIT. RAIPURL, -VERS US" M K’. JOSHIfs/o vméf JOSHI h occummom. FIELD OFFICER. ATE BANK OF INDIA MA /§ISTRIcr-RAIPm(mnHYAmAm&I * j C .1» ‘m - :-. “ IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Han. Mt. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 461 of 1997 State of Madhya Pradesh APPELLAN I VERSUS RESPONDENT M. K. Joshi Shri Praveen Das Dy. GA. for the Statelappeilant. I Shri Pawan Kesherwani Counselforthe respondentt cRIMmAL APPEAL UNDER seenow 37s m oi: THE CODE OF CRIMNAL PRwgpuBE. V E J U D G M E N T . (24.06.2010) A The prese‘r}t_appeal arlsa out of the judgment and order dated 13.12.1995 passed by Frist Additional Sessions Judge/speciai Judge, Raipur in Speeiai Criminal Case No. 12/1991 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offenoes under Section 7 and 13 (1.)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; 2 The brief faots of the case are that the compiainant Ravindra Kr. Jejna (PW-4) had appiied for sanction of loan of Rs. 5,000 from the State Bank of lndia, Mandhar Branch where respond‘éntlaccused was working as field officer. The complainant has stated that for sanctioning loan the respondent/accused was demanding Rs. 400 as bribe and as he did not want to give the same, written complaint Ex. P-1 was made on 6.1 .1989 in the office of Dy. Superintendent of Polioe (Lokayukta) Raipur. His preliminary statement was recorded and on the same day, Tahasildar Shri G. M. Ansari and Dy. Collector B. L. Mandavi were called by the department. Written complaint Ex. P-1 was shown to them, trap party was #- co‘nstituted and‘preparations to complete the formalities were made. Test was demonstrated by applying Phenolphthalein powder on four currency notes of 100 denominations and then the trap party went to the Bank. The complainant entered the bank and after sometime he and the ’ accused/respondent came out and/went into a hotel situated just near the Bank where the complainant handed .over the bribe money to him and when the complainant gave a signal, the trap party entered the premises H -2“ and seized the money from the trouser pocket of the aocused/respondent Phenolphthalem test of both the hands of the accused/respondent was conducted which proved positive Further Investigation was taken up by the Ponce Authorities and after examining the Witnesses and obtaining sanction the charge sheet was Fled against the accused/respondent on 1402 1989 3. ‘So as to hotd the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in support of its case Statement Vof the accused/respondent was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure In which he dented the charges Ieveiied against him and pleaded his innocence and false Implication In the case 4. By the impugned judgment the tnat Court has acquitted the respondent/accused for the offence as mentioned above Hence the presentappeal . Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the State/appeilant submits that the prosecution has fully proved its case but yet the Court below has egred in law in acquitting the respondent in disbelievrng the statement of the Witnesses He has stated that the prosecution has succeeded in provmg the fact that the money was demanded by the respondentlaccused and the same was paid by the complainant 7. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been [‘— argued on behalf of the respondent that the court below has fully justified in acquitting the respondent and there is no illegality in the same Hel l submits that the alleged amount of Rs 400 was accepted by him against l the payment towards a loan which was outstanding against the‘ l complainant It has been argued by Shn Kesharwanl that the accused/respondent was working as Field Officer and was not competent to sanction the loan amount He submits that B L Mandavi (PW-14) and the Investigating Officer C K Tiwari (PW-1 5) have categorically deposed that they did not see the accused receiVing money nor did they hear any} 5 -3- conversation between the accused and the complainant. He fwther submits that the comptainant has admitted the fact that there was an outstanding loan against him and for his new loan the cheque as already \/ ready and he was required to submit an attidavit stating the eint a there are no dues in any other bank. R. K. Agnihotri (PW-12) has stated that at the relevant time he was working as Branch Manager of the Mandhar Branch and had furnished the loan documents to the Lokayukt Police. He has stated that it is he who was authorized to sanction the loan and na the respondent/accused. He has stated that the complainant was having his - loan account in his bank‘and was required to repay the same. He has further stated that when new loan was sought by the complainant he had asked him that if some amount would be deposited towards the pending loan then only new loan can be sanctioned and when the respondent was trapped he had mfonned him that he had accepted Ra 400 towards the old pending loan. Panch witness B. L. Mandavl (PW-14) who was working, as Dy. Collector has stated that he had not seen the complainant giving bribe amount to the accused nor had he heard any conversation between them. Another witness GM. Ansari (PW_13) has stated that though the money was given by the complainant in his presence, he could not hear the conversation between them that the complainant had given the amwnt towards his pending loan Complainant Ravmdra Kumar Jena (PW-4) though has supported his case but has admitted the fact that earlier also he had taken loan from the State Bank of lndia, Mandhar Branch. Manulal (PW-l 1)‘ the head constable has stated that after the trap, information was given by the complainant that the bribe was already given to theaccused and when the accused came there, he was arrested by the Lokaukt Police and than Rs 1000 was recovered from his pocket This aatement appears to be contrary to the case of the prosecution As per the prowcution case itself only Rs 400 was accepted by the respondent as bnbe and the same was recovered from his pocket Though some other Witnesses of the prosecution have made an effort to support the prosecution case there appears to be material contradictions in their statements. The defence of the respondent/accused cannot be ignored and seems to be probable that the amount of Rs. 400 which was given to the respondent was towards the installment of the earlier loan amount and ,q— to this effect a very specific plea has been taken by him in his statement i recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminai Procedure. After due 4 appreciation of evidence the Court beiow has arrived a particuiar 7 conclusion of acquitting the respondent. 8. 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 ls of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possrble view into consideration is got permissible in law and therefore the yudgment Impugned acquitting the respondent laccused of the offence under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is iust and proper and does not warrant any Interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. lt is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- i Pritinker Diwaker Judge