Gabbusingh @ Gabbu vs State of M.P.

The appellant has filed this petition under Section 378 (2) and (3) of Cr.P.C. for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.03.2015 passed by Special Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Special Case No.5/2011, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted from the charges under Sec. 7 r/w Sec. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Prosecution story in brief is that on 04.06.2011 the complainant Harish Kumar Nayak who was at relevant time, running a Security Service Agency, has made a written complaint to CBI, Jabalpur branch, against the respondent/accused Hari Prasad Singh an Inspector Central Excise, Satna, for demanding Rs.10,000/- as bribe to save the complainant from departmental action against non-payment of service tax and its recovery. After due verification CBI registered offence by recording FIR against the respondent and a trap was conducted and respondent H.P. Singh was caught red handed by CBI on 04.06.2011 in presence of witnesses. The tainted bribe money of Rs.10,000/- was recovered over the seat cover of respondent'' car from the possession of respondent and after due investigation, the charge sheet has been presented before the trial Court after obtaining due sanction of competent authority.

The trial Court has framed the charges under Sec. 7 r/w Sec. 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The respondent abjured guilt. The prosecution has recorded 16 witnesses in its support. Respondent has examined 4 witnesses in his defense. After conclusion of trial, the trial Court has passed impugned judgment dated 20.03.2015 and acquitted the respondent. Against this the prosecution/appellant has filed an appeal and by this application prayed for leave to appeal.

It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/CBI that the respondent/accused has made a demand of bribe from the complainant. The conversation of accused and respondent was duly recorded and the voice of respondent was examined by CFSL, which conforms the voice. There is sufficient evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the demand of bribe. The respondent was caught red handed with bribe money, which is recovered from his possession. Thus, from prosecution evidence, M.Cr.C No.2886/2016 CBI, Jabalpur Vs.

Shri Hari Prasad Singh the alleged offence against the respondent was duly proved. The trial Court, on wrong appreciation of evidence, and giving undue reliance to the statement of hostile witness, has acquitted the respondent. Therefore, leave to appeal may be granted.

Per contra the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the prayer for leave to appeal has been made after inordinate delay. There was no service tax due and outstanding against the complainant, therefore, the allegation of demand of bribe to save the complainant from recovery of tax seems to be false. It is said that the demand was made on mobile phone, but the said mobile phone does not belong to the accused. The owner of mobile was not examined. Prosecution was not able to prove the demand of bribe by the respondent. The transcription of conversation is not found proved. The transcript is not admissible u/s 65(b) of Evidence Act. The trial Court has given cogent findings in para 46 to 52 of the judgment in this regard. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of trial Court. Therefore, leave to appeal may not be granted.

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the record, it appears that the complainant has made complainant to CBI Jabalpur against the respondent who was working as Inspector, Central Excise, Satna, regarding demand of Rs.10,000/-, for not initiating any action against the complainant in the matter of non-payment of service tax. After verification of the complaint, the CBI has registered the FIR and a trap was organized and subsequently, the respondent was caught red handed alongwith tainted money. The prosecution witnesses, complainant (PW-2) and CBI Inspector (PW-9) have verified the above facts in their statements. A transcription of conversation, in which the respondent had made demand, was also prepared and produced in evidence. Other witnesses CBI M.Cr.C No.2886/2016 CBI, Jabalpur Vs.

Shri Hari Prasad Singh Inspector (PW-10) and Investigation Officer (PW-11) and (PW-16) also supports the prosecution regarding demand of bribe and recovery of tainted money from the possession of the respondent.

Therefore, in view of the nature of evidence adduced by the prosecution, there are substantial questions of law and facts raised and arise for consideration in this appeal, therefore, leave to appeal is granted.

Thus, this M.Cr.C. is allowed and matter be registered as regular criminal appeal. The respondent is directed to furnish the bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the Registry of this Court on 30.08.2017 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry.