Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Khilawan Singh Yadav And 2 Others on 6 November, 2019
Author: Ram Krishna Gautam
Bench: Ram Krishna Gautam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 79 Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 431 of 2019 Appellant :- State of U.P. Respondent :- Ram Khilawan Singh Yadav And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- G.A. Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with an Application to Grant Leave for Filing Appeal, has been proposed by the State of U.P. against Sub Inspector-Ram Khilawan Singh Yadav, Constable Satish Chand and Constable Umesh Kumar Sharma, against judgment of acquittal, passed by Sri Sunil Kumar Srivastava, Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Meerut, in Criminal Case No. 42 of 2000, State of U.P. vs. Ram Khilawan Singh Yadav and 2 others, arising out of Case Crime No.204 of 2000, under Sections 7 and 13 (1) D, read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of Police Station, Mathura Kotwal, District Mathura.
Learned AGA has argued that in this case all the witnesses were fully intact and demand of bribery, taking of bribery and recovery of bribery was fully proved, which resulted in a presumption in favour of prosecution that amount recovered was a bribe, but even after all these evidences, on record, coupled with presumption, which could not be rebutted by accused persons because they did not produce any evidence in defence, judgment of acquittal was passed. The impugned judgment is not sustainable in law because Trial Judge has failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it. Hence, proposed Appeal, alongwith this Application, with a prayer for grant of leave to file proposed Appeal.
Having heard learned AGA, gone through the impugned judgment and record, it is apparent that each of the witnesses of the prosecution, examined before the Trial court, were fully intact and the appreciation made by the learned Trial Judge in the judgment seems to be not substantiated with evidence on record. Accordingly, there is sufficient ground for hearing of impugned judgment in Appeal before this Court.
Hence, Application to grant leave to file proposed Criminal Appeal stands allowed and leave is being granted to file proposed Criminal Appeal.
Criminal Appeal is Admitted.
Office to allot regular number to the Criminal Appeal.
Let Bailable Warrants be issued to the Opposite parties, Sub Inspector-Ram Khilawan Singh Yadav, Constable Satish Chand and Constable Umesh Kumar Sharma, through the Chief Judicial Magistrates, Mathura & Mainpuri.
Record of Trial court is with file.
Let the Criminal Appeal be listed for hearing in week commencing 20th January, 2020.
Order Date :- 6.11.2019 bgs/