- (1.)THIS appeal has been filed by the State Government challenging the judgment dated 5.5.2006 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Seoni in Special Case No.5/2004 whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the charges punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent was working in Janpad Panchayat, Chapra as a Clerk and it is alleged that while so working, on 7.2.2004 he had demanded an amount of Rs.500/ - from the complainant and received it.
(2.)IT is said that complainant Ramesh Prasad Inwati was granted a lease for carrying out certain work in a water body under the Panchayat for a sum of Rs.6000/ - . It is alleged that he filed a complaint before the Collector on 7.2.2004 to the effect that for renewal of this patta the respondent accused is demanding a sum of Rs.500/ -. The Collector forwarded the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Seoni, who in turn directed the SDO(P) one Shri Santosh Pathak and the Police Station Incharge of Lakhnadon Police Station to look into the matter. It is said that the trap was made and in the trap a sum of Rs.500/ - was recovered from the almirah in the office of Janpad Panchayat under the custody of the accused person.
(3.)THE accused was put to trial and the trial Court by the impugned judgment having acquitted him of all the charges, this appeal has been filed by the State Government. Complainant Ramesh Prasad Gyanwati has been examined as P.W.1 and it is stated by him that for the lease granted to him, he was only required to deposit a sum of Rs.6000/ - but the accused was demanding from him a sum of Rs.6500/ - i.e. Rs.500/ - extra as a illegal gratification and therefore, he made the complaint Exhibit P/1 on 7.2.2004 before the Collector. It is said by him that on instructions from the Collector, he went to the office of Superintendent of Police, who in turn, directed him to meet the SDOP, Lakhnadon, Shri Santosh Pathak. It is said that he met the SDOP, who along with his teammate, made the trap and the Panchanama Exhibit P/3 was prepared. The currency note and the register were seized and the prosecution was lodged. In the prosecution two witnesses to the seizure and the Panchanama Exhibit P/1, Shri Ram Milan Sharma (P.W.3) and Jaiprakash Singh (P.W.2) were examined. Even though both these witnesses accepted their signature in the Panchnama Exhibit P/2, in their statement before the Court they have stated that they were taken by the Police authorities on the said date and they were asked to wait in a particular place where the police officers came in a jeep and thereafter, made them sign on a already prepared panchanama. They deny seizure of the currency note and other proceeding of the raid conducted in their presence. As the seizure was not proved in accordance to requirement of law, the Court below has disbelieved the same. That apart, the other prosecution witnesses to the entire event except the police officer have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. It is because of this that the Court below had recorded the order of acquittal. That apart one of the most important aspect which led the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused is the that patta in question was granted initially for three years, renewable clause was available subject to increase in the fees for the grant by 10%. It was found by the Trial Court that the patta was presented for renewal and for renewal after adding the 10% increase as contemplated in the agreement, the amount to be paid was Rs.6500/ - and if the accused who was incharge for renewal has demanded Rs.500/ - more for renewal, learned Court has found that it is in accordance to the requirement and therefore, story putforth by the prosecution becomes doubtful. Taking note of all these circumstances, learned Court has found that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubtt.
We have gone through the judgment and order of trial Court and statement of witnesses and we find that allegation leveled by the prosecution and the story of the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the allegation against the accused was with regard to obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.500/ - and its recovery from his person, the seizure is said to have been witnessed by three witnesses who have all turned hostile, and they have denied the execution of the Panchanama in the manner detailed in the same i.e. Exhibit P/7. That apart, learned Court has found that if a patta was to be renewed and if the terms and conditions of patta contemplated payment of 10% more i.e Rs.650/ - and if respondent was demanding illegal gratification for renewal of the same, the Court has found that extra amount claimed by the accused for renewal was nothing but the amount which was required to be paid at the time of renewal. Taking note of all these circumstances, serious doubt has been expressed by the learned Trial Court in the matter of holding the prosecution to have prove their case.