Chattisgarh High Court
State Of C.G vs Khublal Sharma on 15 March, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No.123 of 2009
• State of Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
• Khublal Sharma, aged about 46 years, S/o Late Shri Bhagan Sharma, Jr.
Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board, Resident of Bhilai Power
House, Sapna Talkies, near Water Tank, Khursipar, Police Station
Chhawni, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For State/Appellant : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Govt. Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Akhil Mishra, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Judgment on Board 15/03/2022
1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04/04/2002 passed by the Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.26/98, whereby the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. According to the prosecution case, at the relevant time the Respondent/accused was posted as Junior Engineer, Electricity Board at Jhalap. In the month of March, 1998, the Complainant Dev Prasad Kelkar (PW-8) made an application for permanent electricity 2 connection before the Junior Engineer, Jhalap. Allegedly, the Respondent/accused demanded Rs.2,070/- as electricity bill for four months and Rs.2,000/- as bribe. At that time, the Complainant had given total Rs.3,070/- to the Respondent/accused. Subsequently, the Respondent/accused, on various occasions, demanded the balance bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- from the Complainant. In this regard, a complaint was made by the Complainant before the Lokayukt, Raipur. Then a trap was conducted on 10.04.1998 and Respondent/ accused Sharma was caught red-handed taking bribe of Rs.1,000/-. After completion of other necessary formalities and completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court framed the charges.
3. On completion of the trial, the trial Court acquitted the Respondent/accused on the ground that in the present case prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe and also failed to prove that the recover amount of Rs.1,000/- was amount of bribe. Hence, this appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State/Appellant submits that learned Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of Complainant Devprasad Kelkar (PW-8) who has corroborated the entire case of prosecution. The Court below further failed to appreciate that immediately after the Respondent/accused was trapped, he did not disclose that he had received the amount in connection with a demand note nor did he attempted to issue any receipt for the amount that he had received from the complainant. 3 Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Court below is bad in law.
5. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/accused opposed the arguments advanced by the State Counsel.
6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties, perused the record of the trial Court minutely, gone through the statement of witnesses and other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
7. Complainant Dev Prasad Kelkar (PW-8) in his Court statement has stated that firstly, he has given Rs.3,070/- to the Respondent/accused out of which Rs.2,070/- he has given for permanent electricity connection and remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- as bribe money which was demanded from him. After one month of the said incident, he made a written complaint i.e. Ex. P-20A. According to this witness, during the period of one month, the Respondent/accused had demanded the remaining bribe money on several occasions. But at that time, the Complainant had not made any complaint regarding the same.
8. Complainant also admitted the facts that initially when the Respondent/accused demanded bribe to him, at that time no other person was present there. There is no clinching evidence available on record which shows the demand of bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the Complainant. Therefore, as stated by the Complainant that initially the amount of bribe of Rs.1,000/- was given by him, is suspicious. 4
9. On perusal of the evidence, it also appears that at the time of trap when the alleged transaction of bribe amount was done, no other person was present there. In the transcription of conversation between the Complainant and the Respondent/accused also, no such talk regarding bribe amount was found. Therefore, looking to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the demand of bribe has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
10.On perusal of the memo dated 21.03.1998 and a demand note i.e. Ex.D2, it also appears that a demand note of Rs.1,000/- was sent to the Complainant along with the said memo dated 21.03.1998 and on the date of trap also Rs.1,000/- was recovered from the Respondent/ accused. Looking to the above, this possibility cannot be ruled out that the amount recovered from the Respondent/accused was the amount which was received by him from the Complainant against the demand note i.e. Ex.D2. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court regarding the acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- is also in accordance with the evidence available on record.
11. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the Respondent/ accused. I do not find any merit in this appeal.
12.Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash 5