IN THE HIGH COUKf OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR: CHUATTtSSftRt+^ O. '§>-3.& OF 20 Singie 8eos?h CRIMINAL APPEAL N0. OF 2005 Appellant Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through: Anti Corruption Bureau, Lokayukta, Unit - Raipur (Chhattisgarh) V^rsus 'espondent. ~^ ^ •^^ o Janaklal Deshlahare, S/o Sukhit Ram Deshlahare, Aged about 32 years, Occupation: Service (Patwari) Halka No. 13, Saja District Durg, R/o vil |lQ|Q£^P.S. Att^rQ Pulgaon, District Durg ~ ^^1^ (CG') APPLICATION FOR GRANT-OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(3) AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(l"fOF THE CODE OF "CRIMINAL PROCEDURE1973 "^ .-•'^'^^••T""^" ^~T~^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. hflr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Acquittal Appeal No. 77 of 2010 APPELLANT State of Chhattisgarh VERSUS RESPONDENT Janaklal Deshlahare J4; Shri Pravin Das Dy. GA for the appellant/State. Shri Vivek Sharma counsel for the respondent/accused. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3) OF THE CODEOF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. JUDGMENT (24.02.2011) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.4.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special ^ludge, Durg in Special Criminal CaseNo. 5/2001 acquitting the respondenVaccused ofthe offences underSectiQns 7;and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) ofthe Prevention ofCorruption Act. 2. Facts of the case in brief are ttiat at the relevant time the respondent/accused was posted as Patwari atvillage Saja, Distriet Durg. Qn 23.5.2000 a written report (Ex. P-1) was made by complainant Madanlal (PW-9) before S.P. (Lokayukta) to the effect that the respondent/accused was demandjng Rs. 900 for mutation of his name in the land record and issuance of Rin Pustika. Dehati Nalisi Ex. P-24 was recorded, pre trap Panchnama Ex. P-5 was prepared, trap party was constituted and after completion of all the formalities demonstration oftest by applying phenolphthalein powder on nine currency notes of 100 denoEnination was made and the trap •party went to the house of the respondent/accused and trap was laid. It is also alleged that complainant had given bribe amount to the respondent/accused and after receiving signal moneywas seized by the trap party from the pocket ofthe shirt ofthe respondent/accused. Seizure memo Ex. P-7 was prepared and hands of the respondent/accused were washed in the sodium carbonate solution colour of which turned pink. After obtaining sanction, charge sheet -2. was filed by the potice and the respondent/accused was prosecuted accordingly. 3. So as to prpve the guilt of the respondenVaccused the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Two persons namely Santuram Nirmal (DW-1) and Jeevanlal (DW-2) were examined by the defence in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegation made against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing counsel for the parties the Court below has acquitted the respondenVaccused of the charges levelled against him by the judgment impugned. Hence this appeal. 5. Counsel for the appellanVState submits that in spite of the prosecution having proved the demand of bribe amount of Rs. 900 madeteyfhe respondenVaccused from the complainant which was later recovered vide Ex. P-7, the Court below has committed a grave legal error by acquitting the respond.e.nt/accused of the charges levelled against him on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to carry out mutation proceedings in favour of the complainant. He submits that witnesses to the recovery of the bribe amount namely Bhupat Kapse (PW-1) and Chandrashekhar Agrawal (PW-2) have also proved the case of the prosecution. He submits that Tehsildar namely I.L. Thakur (PW-8) has merely described the procedure prescribed for recording mutation proceedings and the Court below has committed an error in wrongly interpreting his evidence. .6. On the other hand counsel for the respondent /accused supports the judgment impugned and submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe amount having been made by the respondenVaccused. According to him, from the evidence of the witnesses it is evident that the respondent/accused had no authority to mutate the name of the complainant in the land records which has been substantiated by Tehsildar namely I.L. Thakur (PW-8). Tehsildar has categorically stated in his cross examination that on the date of incident no application for mutation was p.ending before him and that the Patwari had no authority to carry out the mutation proceedings. He submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses in particular the complainant. According to him transcription of the conversation between the complainant and the respondent/accused has also not been proved in accordance with law as the sound of the recording was not clear. He submits that evidence of the complainant reflects that he has not given the full description as to on what dates he had approached the respondent/accused and moneywas demanded by him. 7. Thus .from the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the respondent/accused had no authority to carry out the mutation proceedings as has been stated by Tehsildar I.L. Thakur (PW-8). Moreover, the prosecution has not been able to prove the demand of bribe amount by the accused/respondent. This apart, there are mateaal cantradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnessesr: Being so the Court below has taken all aspects of the matter into consideration and based its findings thereon acquitting the respondenVaccused of the charges levelled against him. This Court does not see any infirmity or illegality in the same. Furthermore, 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, taking the other plausible view into consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment impugned acquitting the respondent /accused of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Rrevention 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. Sd//- Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^