- (1.) THIS application for special leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated April 22, 1991, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, by which the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents Sardul Singh, A. S. I. and Raghubeer Singh, F. C.
(2.) COMPLAINANT Ravi Kumar filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against the accused Sardul Singh and Raghubeer Singh for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 I. P. C. It was averred in the complaint that the complainant, on June 6, 1982, lodged a report at Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar, against Jagmohan Kumar under Section 107/151 Cr. P. C. In that complaint, Sardul Singh, A. S. I. demanded a sum of Rs. 500/, as bribe, to which the appellant refused to pay. On June 7, 1982, at about 10. 00 a. m. Sardul Singh called the complainant to make certain inquiry at the Police Station and when the complainant, alongwith his father, reached at the Police Station, Sardul Singh asked him either to pay Rs. 500/- or a case will be registered against him. As the complainant refused to pay Rs. 5c0/-as bribe to Sardul Singh, therefore, Raghuteer Singh, Foot Constable, was called, who gave heatings to him by his belt, while Sardul Singh, A. S. I. beat him by a stick. They, also, abused him and his father. On the basis of this complaint, cognizance under Section 323 I. P. C. was taken against accused Sardul Singh and Raghubeer Singh by the learned Magistrate and they were tried. The complainant, in support of his case, examined FW 1 Ravi Kumar (the complainant himself), FW 2 Somnath and FW 3 Rajendra. The learned Magistrate, after trial, by his judgment dated April 22, 1991, acquitted the accused and it is against this judgment dated April 22, 1991, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, acquitting the accused that the present application for special leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner-complainant. I have perused the order, passed by the Court below, and the record of the case. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused-respondents on the ground that there is a discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses regarding the demand of Rs. 5c0/-as bribe by the accused. The learned trial Court, also, came to the conclusion that the injuries found on the person of the complainant Ravi Kumar could be self-inflicted injuries and the case of the complainant became doubtful en account of delay in filing the complaint. The learned trial Court was, also, of the opinion that if any complaint would have been filed by Ravi Kumar against Jagmohan Kumar then he should have placed that complaint on record to pro\e his case. The reasoning given by the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused-respondents cannot be said to be unjust and improper. 6. PW 1 Ravi Kumar, in his statement, has stated that accused Sardul Singh demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- for registering a case and taking action against Jagmohan Kumar, while PW 2 Somnath the father of the complainant has stated that the bribe of Rs. 500/- was demanded by accused Sardul Singh for not taking any action against him and not to give him any beating. The case of the complainant is that he was called by the police on June, 7, 1982, and was arrested. The complaint filed by Shri Jagmohan Kumar against the petitioner is EX. 2 on record, which is dated June, 7, 1982 and it appears that for the investigation of that case, the complainant was called in the Police Station and was detained at the Police Station and ultimately he was produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on June 8, 1982, and a case was registered against him. The delay in filing the present complaint, also, raises a suspicion in the case of the complainant. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on June 8, 1982 but the complaint was filed by the complainant on July 1, 1982. The complainant tried to explain the delay on the ground that on the next day he met the Superintendent of Police and reported the matter to him. If he would have made a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and would have filed the complaint before him then that complaint could, also, have been produced before the Court. The complainant even did not take pains to produce the report filed against the accused Jagmohan Kumar under Section 107/151 Cr. P. C. A bare reading of the statements of these two witnesses, viz. , P,w. 1 Ravi Kumar and PW 2 Somnath, do not inspire confidence and, also, do not prove the case against the accused-respondents beyond a reasonable manner of doubt. Delay in filing the complaint, not producing the F. I. R. or the complaint filed by the petitioner complainant against Jagmohan Kumar, contradictions in the statements of the witnesses regarding the purpose for which the bribe of Rs. 500/- was demanded by the accused-respondent Sardul Singh and certain other circumstances raise a suspicion in the case of the complainant and the learned lower court was justified in acquitting the accused-respondents Sardul Singh and Raghubeer Singh by giving them the benefit of doubt. The judicial process caanot be used as an instrument of oppression and needless harassment. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application for special leave to appeal and the same is hereby dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused. .;