(1.) A common order is being passed in this petition and the connected writ petition (W. P. No. 1820/97, Sukhdeo Singh Kainth v. Managing Director, F. C. I.) as the points raised in these petitions and the reliefs claimed by them are similar.
(2.) THE two petitioners in the two cases are employed in the Food Corporation of India. By chance they appeared as witnesses in a criminal case instituted by the C. B. I. , under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act in the Special Court at Jabalpur. That was a trap case against one M. H. Thaokar, Health Inspector employed with Central Railway. A trap was laid by the C. B. I, against the above-named employee of the Central Railway while he was offered currency note of Rs. 50/- by the complainant Santosh as bribe which was alleged to have been accepted by the above-named employee and witnessed by the two petitioners.
(3.) THE statement of the two petitioners as witnesses were recorded under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. Thereafter, they appeared as witnesses in the criminal case. They were examined by the prosecution. In their cross-examination, they stated that they could not clearly see the handing over of currency note by the complainant Santosh Kumar to the railway employee Thaokar and they could not hear the talk that took place between them because by that time the train had arrived and there was commotion. The complainant Santosh Kumar also did not support fully the prosecution case. The Special Judge, therefore, by judgment passed on 28-9-1995 acquitted the railway employee Thaokar. The grounds of acquittal stated by the Special Judge in his judgment are that the complainant did not fully support the prosecution case; the petitioners as the two witnesses to the trap laid by the police did not support the case in their cross examination; they were not even declared hostile by the prosecution and were not cross-examined by it.