IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPURisJng!3 CHHATTISGARH ". -Ac^- fi f-\6 w „ APPELLAWT '^" State of Chhattisgarh Through ; Inspector, Special PoUce EstabUsbinent Lokayukt, Raipur (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENT : Jaiiaklal Deshlahre, S/o Shri Sukhitram Deshlahre, Aged about 32 years, Occupation : Service (Patwari) P.H. No. 13, R/o ViUage : Anjora, PS Pu^aon, Dfett: Durg (CG). APPLICAION FQR_ GRANT OF LEAVE TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION_378 (3L AND MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (11 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. ''•'.^"^.•'.ft'.f ^^ «JUt nivr Acq.A. MO. 40/2009 instt^jegai,,.^'1 .yersus State of Cfahattisgarl Jaiiaklal DeshlsLhare Siiri ,Praveen D&s -Dy. G.A. fbr-tae Sta.te/appUcaiit. ^Sbri Vivels .Shanaa, 'couijsel'fbr the resporideiit. tCA-HON :POR-.eRAKT •£;<^^.4 A' ;A^!?.MEMOQF iys.'is 1'RBXl (12.01.2011) ^'.•'^.;': ^Ss/'xiresent ap'oea!\arises out of the impugned. judgzii.ent & order daTed 5.4.05 passed bv t;be First Additional Sessions Judse & Special Judge; Durg in Special C-ase No. 6/01 whereby acquitting the respoiident for the alteged offsnces iinder Sectioss 7 & 13 (l)(d) & Section 13(2) pf the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at ttie relevani time tlie i^sT'ondent was working as Pativari ajid was posted a.t Haika N0.13 Saja, district Durg'. On 19.5.00, a writtea report Ex.P/21 was dade tov P.W-6 Vatsal Sharma before S.P. Loteavukt allegiag in it fhat tlie respondent/accused who was Patwari at fhe relevant tiine was deiliandtiig Rs. 1000 for the aiutation of laD.d records pursuaiit to a famitv pa.rtitioa ia the faaiilv of tbe coxanlaiosjlt. Dehati Nalishi (Bx.P/25) was xarepared and after coinpletirtg the foi'malities and preparation of pre-trap paiiclinama Ex.P/5, trap party was coiistituted. After cosipleting otber foiin.alities, fest was denionstrated bv a.ppli'-iag pheaoptiivlene on the.ten cun-encv notes of 100 denosiixiatiQns aad then the trap party went to the house of fhe respondent. on 23.5.2000. It is fiirt.her alleged 'that tlie complsdnaat Vateal , Sharma i'P.W.-6i & Rakesh B&att (P,W.-13> entered, the house of ttie respOEdent aod there tb.e coitLplainaB.t gave \ "so him Rs. 1000 wbich was kept by ttie respondent ia his pocket. 'T'be coinplainant came out oftlie house, gave sigiial fo fhe trap party aad the trap parn' entered tiie prciaises of tfa.e respoEdeTit, seized the luonev froin tbe respondent vide Ex. P/8. Thereafter the pheaoptbylene test ofbotb tbe haads ofthe respoiidertt,'accused was conducted whicli proved positive. Initial iiitiestigatiou was taken up bv Anil Pafbak (P.W.-IO' and then the saiiie was done bv tfae Siivestiga.ting Of&cer Ralcesb Bhatt (P.W.-13!. After obtaining sanction, charge sheet was fijfid on 23.8.01 and ths resoondent. was prosecuted for the ofiences as atcrementioned. 3. So as to hold the accused/'resriondent guilty, the prosecution has exa33iiiied as inanv as 13 witnesses. Stateiaent of the accused/respondent was also recorded uuder Section 313 of tl'ie Code of Criiuiaal Procedure in whicb ne denied the charges leveied against hmi aad pleaded his innocence arsd false uapUcation ia Ae case. This aoart, two defeiice witaesses have also beea exaiained bv I]mi ia suooort ofhis case. 4. After hearrag tlie parties, tbe tiial Court has a.ca'uitted ti.'e acciised,'restiondent of the offence as nientioned above. Hence tbe present apoeal. 5. Contention ofthe coiinsel for fhe State/aDTiUcaTi.t is that as oer tlie written i-ei>ort. it is clear taat a deiaaud of Rs. 1000 was laade bv tbe respondent/acciised and recoyenr (Ex.P/llt Ctt.ae blibe amount has been effected from. tiic accused and has been duly proved by tlie pyosecution witnesses 'Bbupat Kapse & CiiSLn.drashekb.sr Agrawal fP.W.-l & P.W.-2). He further submits tbat the resoondeiit/'acciised bas wroagly beea acquitted on the gi~oimd tlist he has no jiuisdiGtion to record fhe inutation feough fhe proseciilion oas proved its case bevond aU fee doubts. He submits tliat the Tah.sildai- i'P.W.-7/') I.L.T'haklu' has uierely described fhe procediu''s ofrecording mutation axid the Court below has wrongly interoret.ed bis eviderice and I'sas erred io law in acQuittiDg tlie resoondent/accused. -"r::-»tW^rT!T'' r.^' aa6:W~^ ^' •.-tl-.. ^^^Ss:... .. ,, ^'"'sS^L^*14 6. Supporting fbe irapugs]sd judgm.ent it has been ai'gugd 'by Shri Sharms,, couu.sel fbr Gie respoadent/accused fbax Uie prosecution bss utteriv failed to Ri-ove tlie deiaaad al'iea'efUv lEade b^- tbe respoad.ent. Ke furtlier submits tbat on fhe date of tosp i.e. 23.5.00. no apslicatio.a was Dendiag before the revenue aufhorities and fberefore question of dem.pjiding axtd givins ar.y laoney does not s-rise. He fiirther submits ffaat there is absol'utelv no docuiB.ent oa record to sbow that any famiiy partition had taken place in tlie house of the complaiaaaf. No.ne oft3.ie faiailv niem.ber of the coinplai2iant has been exaicined ia order to establish the proof of paftitioii. He submits fb.at once tbe deinai)d and acceptance has s.ot beeB Dro">l'ed 'by the'-prosecution 'bevond all the doubts. tlie respondea.t caiLUOt l')e convicted. He also subciits that tlie coiaplaiiiant (P.W.-6J hss adinitted the fact tliat fhe tratascriptiou of Ex.P/15 regaKling ttie conversation between t'fie respondent/accused as.d tne CQiiipiaii^ant. i.s not clear sjid tberefore aiso tbe accruittai of fb,e 1'espoiideiit is justiSed. Ke szibrairs that. the sanction for prosecutioB cy &e Addifional Secretar'/ has slso not been proved by tlse prosecutioa as per <iie n-q'jireiEent oflaw. He nu-ttlfir subiuits tha.t fhe wiitten report (Ex.P/21) is also not elaborate showing the fact as to on what date tiie clem.aiid was made, whea tlie coinplamant went fo tti.e respondent sncl how the trwisactioTi was to 'be tma'ized. He a'so submits tliat tbe iadependeiit witaesses have also not fully supported the prosecution case. 7. I have Iieaid counsel for the parties and penised t'hs record. I fiiid sufficient force iii tlie at'gixmeats of Shri Sha-fma.. counsel for tlie respondeat/accused fiiat. the proseo.ition has lailed to prove its case 'bevond all the reasonable doubts. AI1 the points as argued bv tbe counsel for tbe aTipe]laiit aiid the respondent have toeen dulv considered bv the Coiirt foelow to aiiive to a particular conclusion of acquitting the accused/respoadent and the view taken "by f'ae coiu-t beiow is one of the possitole view, 8. !t is a setfled position of law in relation to cases against acquittaJ, in aa appeal against acquittal if tovo views are possible on the bas.is of the eyidence led Dv the prosecution aad the trial Court c^ tak1.ng one view favoured tbe accused, reversion of fhe fiadiags of acquittal by tbe appeUate Court taldiig the ot&er possible view mto consideration is not oeiTaissible in law. This Court is of tfce view that fhe judsment impugned acquittiEg the respondent/accused of fbe onence as alleged is just and proper. 9. In the result, fhe appea] taiis aad is disiriissed as sucb. s^^^et ^\fl^ -Httr.: '-.^—f;-i^-. ^.s-J^3^!'t^-. [fll'SSIiiS'Sii^ ?t^^e