7 \ f / NW lllHll\\l)\l\\m\ll CF0000059 $Q CMMINIL AppEm. N o.‘ E m‘ ST AT E OF M.?. rmmUGH pow- TAnoN; sg-E’cxAiL PoLIGE Esmmxsmmi‘, w LoK AWK'rhmE-mcs, mp. 'BmpAI; mum RAEUR. gppEm. mg; ‘ » — -VERSU$— RAMEsmR PRASN) KASHY r 3/0 SEVAK Rm KASHYAP’ PMWARI HNaKA/NO 56 kWHAR, POLIm STA‘IION"MA3mOR1wDIb TT¢ ' mLASPUR(W)o " - E2L ii ON FOR EAT m sEON S \ " RESpoNDEgTs £ C G ’ W HIGH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BIWWR 1 § <, « ‘ Single Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justic: Prmnker @iwnkerg Criminal Aweal No. 363 of 1996' a l The State of Mad‘hyq Pradesh APPELLANT Versus ‘ RESPONDENI Rameshwar' Prasad Kq§hyap if Shrl Vaibhav A Goverdhan PL for The State Shrl kavu Kumar‘ Bhagn'r ccunsel for- fhe respondent i ' APPLICA ON FOR GRANT OF LEAVE T9 APP Ah U SECTION 378 ( OF THE C DE OF CR1 O R D E R ‘ (19.03.2010) The present upped is directed gginst‘ghe1giymgén‘egi ‘ < judgment dated 18.4.1995 passedxby Spe¢jgligudg§ Raggyrginf v Special Criminal Case No.53/1991;acgulT1in9,‘¥h§,‘re$po?ndlan{ ’fér- ”The allegedy offenges punishahwlem under Seman? agid 13(1)(d) read with Secfion 13(2) of' fhe ,_Brever;ti,qérr;¢ir}9f Corruption Act. 2. Brief facts of the ewe are ‘thgt ongithe‘: _b,‘asl§v of complaint made by Suresh Kumarp§PW—3), whoyggmfFbwen o Attorney holder of the Radheshyam (PW—1) ,oxtrop Wowmgde and It Is alleged that Rs 700/- were accepted by the accused/appellant as a bribe g 3. In support of Its case, the prosecution hagemmwedé r many as 11 witnesses Statement of the respahdentj was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure In which he denied the charges leveled, agglpst him, and pleaded innocence and false implicationgin .thefcaseflihis 5‘ apart, witness namely Jeevandas; ,(DW-1)*:i’ha§ atso been ‘ examined by the defence in support of its ease aw " DE i R9 7 ‘ a vly, ; ; ft w w a‘ 4;; 4. By fha judgmem impugned *hewurt below hgs acquittgd g ‘ The respondem for fhe alieged offences- pmishable‘ unde Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of, #‘h Prevenfion of Commion Act ‘5. Counsel for the Stataa’ppetiant ’subrnitsthgtiargthe‘ relevant time respondent was working as; Patwgnig m§ t demanded Rs.700/- from the compiainant suresh‘for'sagpiyi the certified copy of the Rm Pushka and on the a complamt Ex P—4 a trap party was constituted and tray was le m accordance With law He submits that even sf the pr v has failed to prove the factrthat the mountiofbr engage given ‘ e to the respondent, fact remains that themgwaatnecoyere from his trouser, and therefore the court below éugttttoihav convieted theorespondentlucewsedguHejurthmsubmits conclusion of the court below that the‘demahd»yhas;ndt b proved by the prosecution iserronepushand-theuconrt below has ' erred in law in relying upon the contention of“ the'respondent that there was previous enmity between gthe‘resppndent any the complainant. Hefurther submits thet the court below hes " erred m law in acquitting the respondait in absence pf Ppwer $4 of Attomey of Radheshyam (PW-1) 6. On the other,_hmd,'wpporting thefimpugnedydgmept; it, has been argued by counsel forethe. respondent submttg tha the, court ,belowwaafully justified in acquitting the,;re§pond&it and there is no, illegality in the some. He submits‘that‘finding " - of the court below cannot be interfered“withf’unlessythe‘cswneg are perverse 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused tha‘ v' i material available on record aye . r e‘ ”v; dd hg d o d e - ‘7‘ ? x e t , :1 i 8. From fhe statement of RR. Thakur' (PW-7) ~ Tahsildgr ii appears The? in the mutation proceedings; fher'eris hardlymqy“ roie To be played by Pafwar'i. Heasfafestha‘r #he‘vermr‘e wark- is~ ’ = +0 be done by eifher Revenue Inspecfor'; TahsildanorfNaéya Tahsildar whereas in fhe presen‘f cm- if is'eallegedsr‘gi Rs.700/- were demanded by 1'he accused/respqgldenf’fgr“ muTarion andxfor issuing certified copy of‘vfhe- RinyPastikgr ” Radheshyam (PW-1) has categorically slated fhaf litie mglgfomg‘ which alleged demand is said to have been made was 'al done 10 the exienf of the role of the respondenyqgcgfs r Though Suresh Kumar (PW-3) has slated fha‘hwheyhe; ha gone To The respondent on demand being made: by. h s ' respondent, Rs.700/- were given to him which was kepg; by yi in his pocket but the defence witnessr-Jeevandas ibWA§ 1"- Kotwar of the village has stated that money‘wa’s nottaken b the respondent and the same was put in the pocketiof trouserg; ‘ of the respondent, which was hanging on theiwallifromthe e record it is also clear that nov' power of attorney; o Radheshyam (PW-1) has been filed by the prosecution in. favour ' of Suresh Kumar (PW-3) on which? basis it cm be said that any " ’3 work of Radheshyam was to be done. ' 9. After due appreciation of the evidence‘avai‘ltable, pn g record, the Court below had arrived to a conclusion thatthe " 4‘ prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all; reasonable doubts, the respondent is entitled for pcquittgl.‘ " i i ’ l 10. After hearing counsel for the parties and going through“: J the evidence available on record and being very much conscious f of the existing legal position that in aécaseagainst- acquittaljif w: * two views are possible on the, basis of the evidence led by the E l bV ' W ed d e m € 3 y f , i? prosecution and The Trial Cour-T faking one view favourgblq ihe accused, reversion of fhe findings! ofv‘acquif‘rgi :byjhe' appellate Court faking The other» possibiegwiewi' int consideration, is no'i permissihle in iaw, ihisi‘Cour'r‘r sio'f Tg’c _view fhai ‘rhe judgment impugned ocquii‘l'ing the respondenn/E accused of The offences punishable underiSecwion§ 7m1d as; 13(1)(d) read wiih Section 13(2) of The“ Prevenfi v Corrupfion Acf, is jusf and proper and does not‘caii for’an inferference by this Court. 11. For fhe reasons aforementioned, There is normerifé‘injh presenf case and the same is dismissed accordingl Sd/u Pritinker Diwaker Judge D/- w o o y ein ., y §