- (1.) THE present State ap peal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12-12-1980 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, ac quitting the respondent Ishwar Din from the charges under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corrup tion Act. THE State, aggrieved by the said judgment and order filed the present ap peal.
(2.) IT is said that respondent Ishwar Din, being Lekhpal in Tnhsil Sadar, Lucknow, on 24-2-1978 at about 2. 00 accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from the complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. 1) in front of the Kanungo Office situated in the office of Tahsil, Police Sta tion Wazirganj, Lucknow. According to the case of the prosecution, complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. I) was appointed on the post of Co-operative Auditor in the office of the U. R Co-operative Societies Department on 22-2- 1978. It is said that he was required to furnish a certificate with regard to the immovable properties belonging to him and his family members. Therefore, Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. 1) approached the respondent for issue of the said certificate. He accordingly applied to the Tahsildar, Tahsil Sadar, Lucknow for issue of the said certificate on 22-2-1978. On the said application the Reader of the Tahsildar made some endorsement and directed him to approach the Supervisor Kanungo and then he Supervisor Kanun go forwarded his application to the Lekhpal Ishwar Din respondent. It is said that respondent Ishwar Din made enquiry and thereafter he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 50 from the com plainant for submitting a favourable report. It is said that Chandra Kumar Shukla then moved an application Ext. Ka-1 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Lucknow, on 24-2-1978 pointing out that the accused demanded illegal gratification for submitting favourable report. The S. P. (Vigilance) made an endorsement on the said applica tion directing A. P. Chaturvedi and Yadupal Singh, Inspectors Vigilance to look into the matter and take necessary action. Both these Inspectors thereafter arranged a trap and reached Tahsil Office alongwith the complainant. They also called two public witnesses namely Gopal Pandey and Gur Prasad. It is said that Inspector A. B. Chaturvedi took Rs. 50 from the complainant which consisted of two notes of Rs. 20 each and one note of Rs. 10 and after putting his initials on them and applying Phenophthelein powder thereon, handed over the same to the com plainant. It is said that ishwar Dm was working in the verandah in front of the office of Supervisor Kanungo, therefore, the complainant approached him there and gave Rs. 50 as bribe money to Ishwar Din. It is further said that Ishwar Din ac cepted the said money and kept them in the pocket of his coat. All the above men tioned facts were fully witnessed by the Vigilance Inspector as well as public wit nesses by the Vigilance Inspectors ap peared before Ishwar Din and disclosed their identity. A search was made of the person of Ishwar Din and on search they recovered Rs. 50 from the left side lower pocket of the coat of the respondent-ac cused along with some notes. The numbers of the notes noted in the memo, were tallied with the notes recovered from the possession of the accused and the hands and the coat pocket of the accused as well as the hands of the complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla were got washed in separate solution of sodium carbonate and the same were kept in separate phials. The Vigilance Inspectors also prepared memo Ext. Ka-3 on the spot. Thereafter Inspec tor Yadupal Singh along with the accused went to Police Station Wazirganj and lodged a written report Ext. Ka-4 on the basis of which case Crime No. 158 under Section 161, Cr. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on 24-2-1978 at 3. 25 p. m. Here it may be pointed out that as soon as Vigilance Inspector Yadupal Singh along with the accused left the Tahsil building, some qurrel took place between the offi cials of the Tahsil Sadar on one side and Chandra Kumar Shukla complainant and A. B. Chaturvedi Inspector on the other on the ground that they had snatched away money from the Nazir of Tahsil Sadar. Both officers were detained in the office and, thereafter, an information was sent to the Police Station for help. An entry was made in the General Diary at about 4. 00 p. m on the same day. It is said that finally S. P. Yogendra Pal moved an application for sanction before the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate granted sanction for prosecution of the respondent. On receipt of the said sanction the Investigat ing Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused-respondent. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined eleven witness, P. W. 1 Chandra Kumar Shukla is the person who moved application before the Vigilance Officer informing him that the respondent was demanding illegal gratification for issue of certificate. He also stated that he offered illegal gratification to the respon dent. P. W. 2 Gopal Pandey is the public witness who stated that he accompanied the raiding party and Shri Shukla handed over Rs. 50 to the accused-respondent as illegal gratification. P. W. 3 Chandra Pal Singh is the Vigilance Inspector and he was one of the members of the raiding party P. W. 4 Gur Prasad is another witness who accompanied the raiding party. P. W. 5 Ram Ajore Tewari is the Upper Divisional Clerk P. C. E Co-operative Societies who stated that Chandra Kumar Shukla was selected and appointment letter was is sued and he was asked to submit a certifi cate with regard to his properties. P. W. 6 Raja Ram Singh, is the Head Moharir Police Station Wazirganj who stated that the F. I. R. was lodged in this case and on report of the F. I. R. , he registered as case and made other entries in the General Diary, P. W. 7 Yogendra Narain was the District Magistrate, Lucknow, who proved the sanction granted by him for the prosecution of the respondent-accused. P. W. 8 Raj Bahadur Singh was the Con stable Vigilance Department. He stated that he brought two phials and one en velope to the office of the Chemical Ex aminer, Agra and handed over the same to the Chemical Examiner and thereafter again handed over the report of the Chemical Examination at the Police Sta tion. P. W. 9 Beni Bahadur Singh was the Head Constable Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow. He stated that he sent Rs. 50 two phials containing the solution of sodium carbonate and the phenophthelein pow der and the coat of the accused to the Chemical Examiner, Agra through Con stable Lal Singh and made entry in the General Diary. P. W. 10 Constable Lal Singh stated that he brought the above mentioned things to Agra and thereafter returned the same to the Police Station Wazirganj. P. W. 11, S. I. , M. P. Singh is the Investigating Officer who investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused.
(3.) ON the other hand, the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he had not received any application for submitting report as alleged by the complainant Chandra Kumar Shukla (P. W. 1 ). He also stated that the story of the prosecution about the acceptance of the illegal gratification is fictitious one and he was implicated falsely in this case. He fur ther stated that he was sitting in the Tahsil Room and was doing his work. Shri Shukla approached him and prayed for issue of a certificate but on his enquiry as to whether any application has been moved or not, he stated that he had already moved applica tion yesterday (23-2-1978 ). He further stated that Shri Shukla that he moved and application only yesterday but he needed certificate immediately and, therefore, the same be issued. As the accused refused to issue the certificate without enquiry, therefore, Shri Shukla started quarrelling with the respondent and in the meantime some Vigilance persons reached there and fabricated this case against the respon dent- accused. The learned VI Additional Ses sions Judge, Lucknow, after considering the evidence on record came to the con clusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, ac quitted the accused-respondent giving him benefit of doubt.;