State Of Rajasthan vs Bachhu Singh

Farjand Ali, J

This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against judgment of acquittal dated 27.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jodhpur, in Criminal Case No.23/2007 whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted from the charges under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention the Corruption Act, 1988.

Before an elaborate discussion of the evidence and documents presented before the Court, it would be necessary to recapitulate the salient facts. On 08.11.2004, complainant Ratanlal submitted a written report to the Dy. S.P. at the ACB Chowki, Pali alleging inter alia that he is the owner of the agricultural land of Khasra No.1950 on National Highway No.14 near Village Jhalla Ki Chowki; prior to lodging of the report he filed two applications for grant of sanction to construct of residential home and another permission for construction of Hotel and Dhaba was also sought; necessary formalities were done and in this regard he met one Kamruddin Usmani, the then Tehsildar, Raipur, who suggested him to meet Bacchu Singh. Upon which Bacchu Singh stated that upon fulfilling of demand of Rs.8,000/-, the sanction would be granted. The complainant did not want to pay the demanded amount therefore, he approached ACB office, Pali and lodged the complaint. Upon verification of the complaint, trap proceedings were initiated and a team was formed. During trap proceedings when the team reached towards the Tehsil Officer, Raipur; some time whereafter, the complainant Ram Lal came out of the office and stated that Patwari Bachhu Singhhad handed over Rs.8,000/- to Tehsildar. But when the team reached at the spot they did not found the Tehsildar inside there. Whereafter the hands of Bacchu Singh got washed with liquid of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. After completion of formalities, an FIR got lodged at the Police Station CPS-ACB, Jaipur and investigation commenced. After investigation, police filed challan against the accused-Bacchu Singh for the offences under Section 7 & 13 (1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

During trial, 10 witnesses were examined and 62 documents were exhibited. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same and claimed trial. After affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the learned trial Court. Vide order dated 27.01.2012 acquitted the accused Bacchu Singh for the offences aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

Shri Abhishek Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record; the learned trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of prosecution witnesses; the learned trial Court has ignored the factum of guilt of accused; the learned Judge has erred in holding that the amount received by the accused was not a bribe amount. The learned Judge ought to have examined that the aforesaid defence is a lame defence and the learned Judge ought not have accepted the same; lastly, it is submitted that the learned Judge has recorded acquittal on facts, which were not germane and the prosecution had, in fact, proved the case to the hilt.

Per contra, Mr.K.P.Singh, while taking this Court through entire record, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery, therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of money by the accused. He submitted that allegation for demanding money was levelled against the then Tehsildar who has not been arrayed as accused in this case, therefore, it is very much clear that the accused-respondent has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the entire edifice of the prosecution case fall to the ground as the three main ingredients as envisaged under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were absent. He submitted that neither the complainant nor investigating officer could bring home the charge of demand alleged to have made by the accused. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. He also submitted that the lower court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the respondent of the charges levelled against him. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment may not be interfered with and it may be confirmed.

I have considered the arguments advanced on both sides and also gone through the materials on record. Looking to the charge framed against the respondent accused, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While passing the impugned judgment, learned trial Judge has given categorical finding that the respondent was not involved in the offence alleged against him. It is also found that demand of illegal gratification was raised by the then Tehsildar and not by the accused-respondent, the then Tehsildar has not been arrayed as an accused. On the contrary, the prosecution has failed to prove any demand, acceptance and recovery, therefore also, the respondent was rightly acquitted of the charges levelled against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is felt that the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the appellant of the charges levelled against him.

It is settled legal position that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to give fresh reasoning when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. The prosecution having failed to prove the three main ingredients for bringing home the guilt. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondent and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit and is required to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 27.01.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.23/2007, acquitting the respondent-accused, is hereby confirmed.

Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands cancelled.