State Of Chhattisgarh vs Mohammad Jibraile

The instant appeal has been moved by the State against the judgment dated 28.08.2008 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’), Durg, (C.G.) in Special Case No.2/2000, whereby the Special Judge has acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charges under Sections 7,9,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.

According to the case of the prosecution, the Respondent/accused was appointed as a licence surveyor by the Insurance Regulatory of Government of India. He was entrusted by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bhilai to survey the vehicle of complainant Balwant Singh (PW9) bearing registration number MP24/GC/0028. Allegedly, to settle the claim, the Respondent/accused demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe from the complainant which the complainant was not ready to give him. He informed about the demand to Special Police Establishment, Raipur. On receipt of the complaint, officials of the Special Police Establishment gave him a tape recorder to record the conversation to be done between him and the Respondent/accused, upon which he again contacted the Respondent/accused personally as well as telephonically to show his readiness for giving bribe of Rs.5,000/-. The conversation was also recorded by him. The Respondent/accused asked him to come at Bhilai Hotel on 01.09.1999. On the basis of the information received from the complainant, Special Police Establishment arranged a trap. A trap party was constituted. After completion of other formalities, the trap party went to the house of the Respondent/ accused, where the complainant entered inside and thereafter came out from the house and gave a signal to the trap party. The trap party rushed inside the house of the Respondent/accused. Having seen them, the Respondent/accused speedily went inside his bedroom and after some time he came out from there. Members of the trap party asked him to produce the received currency notes of bribe. At the instance of the information received from the Respondent/accused, the currency notes were recovered from a book-shelf of the Respondent/accused. After completion of other necessary formalities and investigation, a charge-sheet was fled before the Special Court. The Special Court framed charges. Total 13 witnesses were examined before the Special Court against the Respondent/accused. In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Respondent/accused denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondent/accused giving him beneft of doubt. It was held by the Special Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe money. Hence, the instant appeal by the State against the acquittal.

Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Appellant submitted that the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the Respondent/accused as investigation officer R.K. Rai (PW13) and other witness N.S. Rajput (PW10) have supported all the proceedings of the trap. It was further submitted that complainant Balwant Singh (PW9) has also supported the case of the prosecution but the Court below has erroneously dis-believed his evidence. It was further argued that including N.S. Rajput (PW10) and R.K. Rai (PW13), J.S. Jangi (PW11) has also corroborated the case of the prosecution.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court and submitted that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the Court below has rightly acquitted the Respondent/accused.

I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution both oral and documentary. I have also gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Court below.

The Court below has acquitted the Respondent/accused mainly on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish the fact that the demand was made by the Respondent/accused and also failed to establish the fact that the Respondent/accused accepted any money as illegal gratifcation. To examine this aspect, I examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

According to the case of prosecution, on the frst occasion, when the demand was made by the Respondent/accused, at that time, the conversation took place between the complainant and the Respondent/accused was recorded by the complainant and later on a transcription of said conversation has also been prepared. In this regard, the prosecution has relied on the document of transcription (Ex.P1). According to the case of the prosecution, this transcription of conversation of both the complainant and the Respondent/accused, which was recorded in the tape recorder, was prepared by Shyam Rao (Shyam Sunder Rao) (PW12). In his Court statement, Shyam Rao (Shyam Sunder Rao) (PW12) deposed that on submission of the micro cassette and the tape recorder by the complainant, he prepared the transcription in presence of punch witnesses. The transcription (Ex.P1) shows that this relates to the conversation between the complainant and the Respondent/accused and which was done on 30.08.1999 at about 20:30 hours on telephone number 310553 and another telephone number 353538. Meaning thereby, the transcription (Ex.P1) prepared is not of the conversation which was recorded in the tape recorder by the complainant, but it relates to the conversation done on land-line phone. The transcription of the conversation which was recorded in the tape recorder is not produced by the prosecution and Shyam Rao (Shyam Sunder Rao) (PW12) has wrongly deposed that the transcription (Ex.P1) is of the conversation recorded in the tape recorder.

With regard to the trap also, both punch witnesses Ramji Sahu (PW3) and N.S. Rajput (PW10) have admitted the fact that in their presence, no conversation took place between the complainant and the Respondent/accused and no transaction of money was done between the complainant and the Respondent/ accused. Complainant Balwant Singh (PW9) in paragraph 8 of his cross-examination admitted the fact that at the time of trap, when he entered inside the house of the Respondent/accused and wanted to give him money, the Respondent/accused refused to accept that money and said that he was unable to do the work. The witness further admitted the fact that thereafter asking the Respondent/accused to do the work, he put the money on the bed and left the room. He further admitted that thereafter, when the trap party entered inside the room then on being asked by the trap party, the Respondent/accused picked-up the money and after counting the currency notes gave the same to the trap party. Both punch witnesses Ramji Sahu (PW3) and N.S. Rajput (PW10) deposed that when the trap party entered inside the room and on being asked by them, the Respondent/accused told them that the money was kept in the almirah and according to their Court statements, the money was recovered from the almirah. As complainant Balwant Singh (PW9) himself admitted the fact that on being asked by the trap party, the money was picked-up by the Respondent/accused and was counted by him and thereafter handed-over by him to the trap party and, therefore, the Trial Court rightly arrived at the conclusion that even if the hands of the Respondent/accused were found to be smeared with colour, that was natural because that could happen during counting of the said currency notes. I do not fnd any reason on the basis of which the above fnding of the Court below can be dis-believed.

Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, I also fnd that the prosecution has totally failed to prove the factum of demand of money by the Respondent/accused as bribe and also failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe by the Respondent/accused. Thus, the Court below has rightly acquitted the Respondent/accused.

Consequently, I do not fnd any merit in the instant appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.