Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 890 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Allauddin Mansuri

2016-06-20

VIJAY BISHONI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This Appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 20.1.1992 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bhilwara (for short 'the Trial Court' hereinafter) in case No. 15/1991 (5/1986) A.C.D. whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1)(D) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that complainant Bhura (PW-2) had submitted an oral complaint (Ex.P-3) to the Dy.S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau, Bhilwara alleging that 13 biswas of agricultural land of his share is situated in village Chajwa but the said land was recorded in the name of Kalu son of Deva and for getting the said agricultural land recorded in his name he had filed a case in the Court of the S.D.O. Bhilwara and the said case was decided in his favour and the Court has ordered that the above mentioned agricultural land be recorded in his name instead of Kalu. It is alleged that when the complaint had approached the accused-respondent, who was posted as Patwari of the said area, for recording the above mentioned land in his name as per the order of the Court, the accused-respondent demanded bribe from him. It is also stated that thereafter he went to some other village and again approached the accused-respondent on 16.8.1995 and at that time, the accused respondent demanded bribe of Rs. 125/- from him for recording the land in his name and on his request the accused-respondent agreed to take amount of L100/- as bribe. The complainant had further stated that the Patwari had asked him to come to Patwar Office with the said amount by the evening, however, as he did not want to give the bribe, therefore, he filed the complaint. 3. The Dy.S.P., A.C.B., Bhilwara had recorded oral complaint of the complainant as Ex.P-3 and secured presence of two Government officials to act as trap witnesses and smeared phenolphthalein powder on the money and then landed over to the complainant with instruction to give the same to the accused-respondent on demand and he was also instructed to give a signal after giving the bribe money. As per the instructions, the complainant had paid Rs. 100/- (ten notes of Rs. 10/- each) to the accused-respondent and signaled the trap party. As per the instructions, the complainant had paid Rs. 100/- (ten notes of Rs. 10/- each) to the accused-respondent and signaled the trap party. Thereafter, immediately the trap party had caught hold of the accused-respondent and asked him about the bribe money and the accused-respondent had admitted that he has received Rs. 100/- from the compliant and the same is lying beneath a book at the Patwarghar. The phenolphthalein test was done on the hand wash and the colour of solution turned pink. Thereafter, the solution was collected in two separate vials and the same were sealed and the money ms seized at the instance of the accused-respondent. 4. During trial, the prosecution had produced as many as 16 witnesses and also got exhibited 17 documents. The statement of the accused-respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he himself was examined as DW-1. Three defence witnesses were also produced and 19 documents were exhibited. The learned Trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as accused-respondent in defence has acquitted him from the offences punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(D) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the demand and the acceptance of the bribe was fully proved by the prosecution, however, the learned Trial Court has wrongly disbelieved the prosecution evidence, particularly, the evidence of Bhura (PW-2) and the Trap Officer Sajjan Singh (PW-7). It is also argued that from the evidence of Dinesh Pareek (PW-3) and Samarth Lal (PW-5), it is clear that the accused-respondent was caught red handed while accepting the bribe from Bhura (PW-2), but the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the said prosecution evidence and has illegally relied upon the defence evidence produced by the accused-respondent though the same was not reliable. 6. On the strength of the aforesaid arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that the impugned judgment dated 20.1.1992 be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1)(D) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced accordingly. 7. 6. On the strength of the aforesaid arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has prayed that the impugned judgment dated 20.1.1992 be set aside and the accused-respondent be convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1)(D) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced accordingly. 7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the accused-respondent has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and contended that the learned Trial Court has given adequate reasons for acquitting the accused-respondent as the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the periphery of doubt. It is also argued that as a matter of fact, the accused-respondent had produced cogent and reliable evidence to prove before the Trial Court that the amount of Rs. 100/- was given to him by the complainant for the purpose of depositing of the revenue rent of the land the there is not truth in the allegation of the complainant that the accused-respondent had received Rs. 100/- for the purpose of recording his name in the revenue record for 13 biswas of the agricultural land because the said land was already recorded the name of the complainant prior to the date of the incident. Learned Court for the accused-respondent has argued that no interference is required by this Court in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned Counsel for the rival parties and carefully scrutinised the record. 9. There is no quarrel about the proposition of law that the High Court the power of converting an acquittal into a conviction, however, at the Same time, it is also settled that if the Trial Court's judgment is based on the evidence and the conclusion drawn in favour of the accused was possible thereof, the High Court would not be justified in interfering on the premise that a different view could also be taken. Though the High Court is entitled to re-appraise the evidence but there should be substantial and compelling reasons for setting aside an acquittal order and making one of conviction. 10. Reliance can be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gopal Singh & Ors. Though the High Court is entitled to re-appraise the evidence but there should be substantial and compelling reasons for setting aside an acquittal order and making one of conviction. 10. Reliance can be placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Gopal Singh & Ors. v. State of Madhay Pardesh reported in 2010 Cr.L.R. (SC) 453; Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2011 Cr.L.R. (SC) 303 and Selvaraj v. State of Karnataka, reports 2015 (4) AICLR 459 (S.C.). 11. In the present case, the Trial Court has held that the prosecution failed to prove that prior to the date of incident i.e. 16.8.1985, there demand of bribe by the accused-respondent from the complainant. The Trial Court has held that as per the complainant Bhura (PW-2), the accused-respondent demanded bribe from him for the first time on 16.8.1985 and on the very day, he submitted the compliant against him to the official of the Anti irruption Bureau. The Trial Court has further held that though the complainant has alleged that the bribe was demanded by the accused-respondent for cording the agricultural land in his name in the revenue records but from the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the accused-respondent, it is clear it the name of the accused was already entered in the revenue record prior to the date of the incident. The Trial Court has also held that from the evidence of the trap witnesses, it is clear that at the time of trap, the accused-respondent mediately gave his explanation to the trap officer that amount of L100/- was given to him by the complainant for the purpose of depositing the revenue rent and from the documentary evidence produced by the accused-respondent, it is clear that revenue rent of about Rs. 128/- was due against he complainant. The Court has also considered the evidence produced by defence witnesses herein they have clearly stated that the complainant was angry with the accused-respondent because he has recorded only 11 biswas of land in his name instead of 13 biswas. The learned Trial Court has further held that presumption of guilt of the accused-respondent has demolished by producing cogent and reliable defence evidence and therefore the accused-respondent cannot be convicted for the charge of accepting bribe from the complainant. 12. The learned Trial Court has further held that presumption of guilt of the accused-respondent has demolished by producing cogent and reliable defence evidence and therefore the accused-respondent cannot be convicted for the charge of accepting bribe from the complainant. 12. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after ping through the evidence produced by the prosecution as well as the defence, I am of the opinion that the accused-respondent has sufficiently demolished the presumption of guilt by producing the defence evidence and has able to prove that the money given to him by the complainant was not bribe and the same was given to him for the purpose that prior to filing of the complaint against the accused-respondent on 16.8.1985, the land was already recorded in the name of the complainant, however, the complainant was angry with the accused-respondent because only 11 biswas of land was recorded in his name though he demanded that 13 biswas of the land be recorded in his name. It is also come on record that the accused-respondent has recorded only 11 biswas of the land in the name of the complainant as per the order of the Tehsildar concerned. 13. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent from the charges levelled against him. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.