STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. PRABHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 6.5.1996 whereby the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Jaipur has acquitted the accused-respondent Prabhati in the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988').

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal succinctly stated are that on 19.2.1992, the complainant PW-2 Shyama Ram filed a written complaint Ex.P-3 before Dy.S.P. RSBI, Sikar PW-10 Ridhkaran stating that he was a student of Government High School, Purana Bas, Neem Ka Thana and passed VIII class in the year 1974. He needed the duplicate copy of transfer certificate in connection with an employment in Noida Industrial Area as the original and one duplicate transfer certificate, which he had obtained earlier, had set on fire. The complainant met the Head Master of School Shri Prabhati who solicited for a bribe of Rs. 50/- in lieu of giving a second duplicate copy of transfer certificate which he did not intent to pay. PW-10 Shri Ridhkaran formulated a scheme for entrapping the accused Prabhati and co-opted two independent witnesses PW-5- Nand Kishore and PW-9 Surja Ram. The complainant made available two currency notes each of Rs. 20/-and one currency note of Rs. 10/- to the Dy.S.P. who applied phenolphthalein powder thereon and returned to the complainant for handing over to the accused. Having undergone the necessary process of trap preparation, they went to School situated in Purana Bas Neem Ka Thana and on getting the Signal of the complainant, nabbed the accused Prabhati red handed with the same initialed currency notes. The Police registered the case on the report of PW-10 Ridhkaran Dy.S.P. and having collected the necessary documents on record and the statements of the witnesses etc. sent the accused for trial to the Court.

(3.) The accused appellant Prabhati was charged for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the 'Act of 1988' who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses to prove its case. The accused in his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., claimed innocence. On completion of trial, the accused was acquitted of the charges as indicated hereinabove.