Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 603 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mumtaz Ali Quresi

2016-04-29

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. By way of the instant application under Section 378(1) read with Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 16.9.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Criminal Case No.22/2008 acquitting the respondent accused from the offences under Section 7/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 I.P.C. 2. Facts in brief are that the respondent Mumtaz Ali was working as a public prosecutor in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner at the relevant point of time. A criminal case involving charge of rape with the daughter of one Shri Damodar Meghwal was instituted in the said court. The accused Satya Narayan was acquitted by the court upon which, Damodar, father of the victim approached the respondent herein for filing an appeal in the appellate court against the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused. The respondent allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 5000/- for filing the appeal and refused to do so in case, the amount was not paid. The complainant was not desirous of giving bribe and accordingly he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau Outpost Bikaner and submitted a report on 25.4.2007 expressing his desire to have the respondent trapped with the bribe money. Upon this report, verification of alleged demand was conducted. After verification was done, the complainant was sent to the court premises at Bikaner on 26.4.2007 for passing on the bribe amount to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent herein. It is further alleged that the respondent herein took the sum of Rs. 5000/- from the complainant and then, on his pleading, returned a sum of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant and placed the remaining notes worth Rs. 4000/- in the drawer of his table. Upon this, the complainant gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party which reached at the respondent's table and confronted him about the acceptance of bribe on which the respondent became perturbed and accepted that he had taken a sum of Rs. 4000/- for filing an appeal. 4000/- in the drawer of his table. Upon this, the complainant gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party which reached at the respondent's table and confronted him about the acceptance of bribe on which the respondent became perturbed and accepted that he had taken a sum of Rs. 4000/- for filing an appeal. The trap party started proceedings for washing the hands of the respondent and was preparing to recover the trap money upon which, the respondent raised a hue and cry and a crowd of 60-65 advocates collected and created a ruckus. They managed to whisk Mumtaz Ali away from the scene of the offence. The bribe money and the file lying in the table of Mumtaz Ali were also taken by an advocate. The bar room was locked up. Thereupon, the officials of ACB had to return empty handed. As the trap party was obstructed from performance of their duties, Mr.Anand Vyas, Inspector, ACB submitted an FIR No.164/2007 at P.S. Sadar, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 332, 353 and 143 IPC against unknown persons. FIR No.144/2007 was registered against Mumtaz Ali for the offences under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 3. After investigation of the present case, the Bureau filed a charge-sheet against the respondent herein for the offences under Section 7/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 201 IPC. The learned trial Judge framed charges against the respondent for these offences. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. The respondent denied the prosecution allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He had no authority to file an appeal in any case of acquittal. He was simply authorised to give his opinion. He had already forwarded his opinion in relation to the judgment of acquittal of Satya Narayan within the stipulated time and no work was pending with him in relation to the said case on the day of trap proceeding. He specifically pleaded that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from Mr. Damodar nor did he return him a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. However, no evidence was led in defence. 4. The learned trial Judge, upon conclusion of trial by a detailed judgment dated 16.9.2015 proceeded to acquit the respondent from the charges giving him the benefit of doubt. He specifically pleaded that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from Mr. Damodar nor did he return him a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. However, no evidence was led in defence. 4. The learned trial Judge, upon conclusion of trial by a detailed judgment dated 16.9.2015 proceeded to acquit the respondent from the charges giving him the benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court by way of the instant application under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code craving leave to file an appeal against the above judgment of acquittal. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned P.P. and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. 6. Being aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court by way of the instant application under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code craving leave to file an appeal against the above judgment of acquittal. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned P.P. and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. 6. The learned trial Judge arrived at the following conclusions for acquitting the accused :- ^^93- vr% gLrxr izdj.k esa ekax lR;kiu okrkZ lafnX/k gSA Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd ny dh dk;Zokgh iwjh rjg lafnX/krk ds ?ksjs esa gS D;ksafd Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd foHkkx ds deZpkjh tks ekSds ij V~si ds lkFk Fks] muds dFkuksa esa fojks/kkHkkl gSaA fQuksYQFkyhu ikmMj yxkus dh dgkuh Li"Vr% >wBh izrhr gksrh gSA eky[kkuk bUpktZ vodk'k ij Fkk] mldh ekSds ij mifLFkfr crkbZ xbZ gSA ljdkjh xokg lqcg lk<+s lkr cts gh Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd dk;kZy; esa ekStwn Fks vkSj uksVksa ij ikmMj lqcg lk<+s lkr cts gh yxkuk ih0M0 jkeizrki tkfgj djrk gS tcfd uksVksa ij ikmMj yxkuk ekax lR;kiu ds ckn Vs~idrkZ tkfgj djrk gS tks le; lk<+s X;kjg cts ds vklikl dk gSA xokg dks] ekax lR;kiu ds ckn cqykuk tkfgj djrk gS tcfd xokgku igys ls gh ekSds ij ekStwn FksA eqyfte ds Lo;a ls fdlh rjg dh cjkenxh ugha gqbz gSaA fj'or jkf'k gh cjken ugha gqbZ gSaA vjksih Hkh ekSds ij ugha idM+k x;k gSA vr% fj'or jkf'k dh ekax] fj'or jkf'k dh Lohd`fr rFkk fj'or jkf'k dh cjkenxh lc dqN lafnX/k gSA vkjksih ds ikl ifjoknh dk dksbZ dke yfEcr jgk gks] bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh nLrkost vfHk;kstu }kjk is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSaA vr% fj'or jkf'k dh ekax ds nkSjku gehjkjke dh mifLFkfr crkbZ xbZ gS tcfd ifjoknh gehjkjke dh mifLFkfr ls bUdkj djrk gS] gehjkjke dh vkokt ls Hkh bUdkj djrk gSA blh rjg ysunsu okrkZ izn'kZ ih0 6 esa ifjoknh gehjkjke dh mifLFkfr tkfgj djrk gSA vfHk;kstu Hkh ftldk leFkZu djrk gS ysfdu tks ysunsu okrkZ dk fjdkMZ izn'kZ ih0 6 i=koyh ij j[kk x;k gS] mlesa gehjkjke dk dgha uke gh ugha gSA vr% ekax o jkf'k Lohd`fr lEiw.kZ :i ls lafnX/k gSA vr% vkjksih ds f[kykQ vfHk;kstu i{k lUnsg ls ijs /kkjk 7 ,oa 13@1@Mh lifBr /kkjk 13@2 Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e 1988 o /kkjk 201 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dk vkjksi lkfcr djus esa vlQy jgk gSA** 7. I have minutely examined the record and the evidence led at the trial and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned P.P. 8. The findings of the trial Court are thoroughly justified by the material available on record. The reason for demand of bribe attributed to the respondent by the prosecution was that an accused named Satya Narayan had been acquitted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner. The case was instituted in relation to the alleged rape with the daughter of the complainant. The complainant Mr.Damodar was desirous of having an appeal filed against the said judgment and thus, he approached the respondent Mumtaz Ali who was the public prosecutor concerned. However, the prosecution did not place on record, a single document so as to satisfy the Court that any such judgment acquitting Satya Narayan in a case involving rape of the complainant's daughter was ever passed. The I.O. Mr. Chaturbhuj Panwar PW10 in his cross examination accepted that when he received the file during investigation, he did not ascertain as to whether the file relating to the case involving rape with the complainant's daughter was available on the investigation file or not. He himself did not procure any document pertaining to the said case. He candidly conceded that he did not know as to whether any document relating to the said case was available with the respondent on the day of trap proceeding. Thus, the substratum of the prosecution case which was laid as the foundation for alleged demand of bribe viz., the record of the case in which Satya Narayan was allegedly acquitted from the offence under Section 376 IPC was not produced and proved. In the absence thereof, there could not have been any ground for the trial Court to believe the complainant's theory that the accused demanded bribe for filing an appeal against the judgment of acquittal Satya Narayan. The prosecution did not exhibit the cassettes of the alleged recording of the conversation between the complainant and the respondent so as to substantiate the charge of rape. Two of the material independent witnesses namely, Mr. Mahendra Muletia and Mr. Hamira Ram were not examined by the prosecution at the trial. Thus, the trial Court was perfectly justified in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution. Two of the material independent witnesses namely, Mr. Mahendra Muletia and Mr. Hamira Ram were not examined by the prosecution at the trial. Thus, the trial Court was perfectly justified in drawing adverse inference against the prosecution. Neither any tainted currency notes were recovered from or at the instance of the respondent nor could the trap laying officer wash the hands of the accused so as to establish that the accused handled the tainted currency notes. The trial Court noticed a serious discrepancy regarding the very availability of phenolphthalein powder with the trap laying officer because constable Mr. Ram Pratap who was incharge of the Malkhana was on leave on the relevant date and despite that, his presence was shown at the spot. The fate of the case registered in relation to the alleged obstruction in performance of duties by the ACB officials was not brought on record. 9. In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment dated 16.9.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner acquitting the respondent from the charges against which the State of Rajasthan craves leave to file an appeal was passed on the basis of just and proper appreciation of evidence available on record. The judgment under challenge does not suffer from any perversity, shortcoming or infirmity ; factual or legal, so as to grant leave to the State for filing an appeal there against. As a consequence of the above discussion, this application for leave to appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby rejected. Record be sent back forthwith.