- (1.) The concurrent finding of fact recorded in the impugned judgment on the charge for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is under challenge before this Court, urging various grounds.
(2.) Mr. Nikhil Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has invited our attention to the evidence of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2 and defence witnesses D.W. -4 and D.W. -5 to show that the concurrent finding of fact is erroneous for want of evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification made by the appellant with P.W. -1/complainant for furnishing past revenue records (45 years old) to produce the same in the civil Court at the illegal gratification of Rs. 450/ -. The High Court on reappreciation of the evidence on record examined the correctness of the finding of guilt on the charge and very carefully examined the prosecution evidence and concurred with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the charge framed against the appellant. The correctness of the same is questioned in this appeal placing strong reliance upon the evidence elicited in the cross -examination of P.W. -1 and P.W. -2, the complainant and the Panch Witness respectively.
(3.) By a careful reading of the relevant portion of both the witnesses, it does not appeal to us that there is any error committed by the High Court in concurring with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court on the conviction on the charge. Further, the grievance of the appellant is that the defence evidence has not been considered at all at the time of appreciating the evidence both by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, though it is required to be considered at the time of recording of finding on the charge.;