AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod Chatterji Koul, J
This appeal has been preferred against judgement of acquittal of respondent-accused dated 31st January 2017, recorded by the Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar (for brevity “Trial Court”) on File no.07/Challan titled as State v. Abdul Aziz Mir (FIR no.03/2010 for offences punishable under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Section 161 RPC registered in police station VOK), with a prayer to set-aside the same.
I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.
Mr Hilal A. Wani, AAG, appearing for appellant, has stated that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence produced by prosecution in its right perspective; even the Trial Court laid much emphasis on mere discrepancies while overlooking the incriminating evidence both oral as well as documentary, which was sufficient to hold respondent-accused guilty of offence of criminal misconduct by abuse of his official position in the capacity of public servant. According to counsel for appellant, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that respondent-accused accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1500/-, which was subsequently recovered from his possession at the time of occurrence and that prosecution witnesses confirmed and proved in one voice the recovery of bribe money from the backside of the cash counter, the receipt of tainted amount by accused was substantiated by positive handwash of accused, which established guilt of respondent-accused beyond any shadow of doubt, but these important aspects have been ignored by the Trial Court. It is also contended that independent witness has corroborated the meeting of complainant with accused, who was waiting for him, flashing of prefixed signal by complainant and recovery from the backside of cash counter of the hotel, besides turning of handwash of accused and thus has confirmed the handling of phenolphthalein simmered currency notices by accused, but this trustworthy and cogent evidence has not been appreciated by the Trial Court. He avers that even Trial Court did not appreciate testimony of prosecution witnesses including members of trap team, who proved basic essentials of the offence of criminal misconduct sufficient to hold respondent-accused guilty, and Trial Court has not given any weightage and credence to the depositions of the complainant and independent witness as well as other witnesses including investigating officer.
Mr S. N. Ratanpuri, learned counsel for respondent, has vehemently argued that the Trial Court has rightly passed the impugned judgement as it has come to fore before the Trial Court that there had been no demand made by respondent but was demanded by the S.O. but the said S.O. was let-off by investigating agency for the reasons best known to it. Learned counsel has also invited attention of this Court to the statement of complainant, in which he has in clear cut terms deposed that respondent-accused refused to accept the bribe money the moment it was made known to him to be so and complainant had also not named him specifically initially, still respondent was implicated and his name was inserted in the initial application afterwards. It is also submission of MrRatanpuri that there is no evidence of voluntary demand and acceptance of bribe and that even independent witness has not supported the prosecution story.
The case set up by appellant and contentions raised by counsel for appellant requires perusal of the Trial Court record and the impugned judgement.
As has been rightly said by the Trial Cour that there are four factors for proving a trap, which are: demand of money that can be categorized in two aspects, i.e., initial demand and demand at the time of trap; acceptance of money in pursuance of aforesaid demand; recovery of bribe money; and consideration for demanding such money.
The Prevention of Corruption Act provides that in order to constitute an offence in terms of the Act, proof of demand is a sine qua non, which is wanting in the present case and as a consequence of which respondent-accused has been acquitted. This has been affirmed in catena of judgements by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The judgements, viz. P.N.Dogra v. CBI, 2009 (II) SLJ 624; V. Sejappa v. The State by Police Inspector, Lokayuta, Chitradurga, 2016 Supreme (SC) 319; P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another, (2015) 10 SCC 152; State of Kerala and another v. C.P.Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450; Mukut Bihari and another v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642, have been rightly relied upon by the Trial Court while passing judgement impugned.
It is evident from perusal of the record that complainant, besides independent witnesses, have not supported the prosecution story before the Trial Court; that is why the Trial Court has rightly acquitted respondent-accused of the charge and dismissed the charge-sheet. As a consequence of which, impugned judgement of acquittal does not warrant any interference.
For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Copy of this judgement be sent down along with the record, if any, received.