Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2527 (ALL)

State Of U. P. v. Anju Mishra

2018-12-12

REKHA DIKSHIT

body2018
ORDER : Rekha Dikshit, J. 1. This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.Act), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.35 of 2006 (State of U.P. Vs. Anju Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2006 under Section 7/13(2) D Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Mahila Thana Hazratganj, District Lucknow, whereby the respondent Anju Mishra has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the aforesaid Section. 2. Narrated concisely, the prosecution case is that the complainant Smt. Rukhsana was married to Salman @ Pappu two years before as per Muslims rites. Her father performed the marriage as per his capacity and status, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and used to torture her mentally and physically, as such, since last one year she is residing with her parents. In this context, on 02.07.2006, she went to Mahila Thana Hazratganj, District Lucknow to lodge a report against her husband, where Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer directed her to go one Kamlesh, who demanded Rs.10,000/-to lodge first information report. Later on, after bargaining it was settled at Rs.3,000/-. On this premise, the complainant moved a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, State of U.P., Lucknow, who ordered for confidential inquiry, her statement was recorded on 04.07.2006 by Shri O.P. Singh and accordingly, a trap team was constituted. It has further been alleged that she gave Rs.3,000/-in the form of six currency notes of 500 each to Shri O.P. Sngh, which were treated accordingly and pre-trap proceedings were conducted and the team reached the police station concerned. When she entered the premises of Mahila Thana again she was directed to Anju Mishra, whom she gave Rs.3,000/-, which was recovered by the team member from right-side window near the seat of Anju Mishra. Accordingly respondent was arrested at the spot and a case was registered at Case Crime No.59 of 2006 under Section 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused-respondent. 3. The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer, who prepared site plan and recorded statement of witnesses. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid Section against the respondent. The charge against the respondent under aforesaid section was framed to which she denied and claimed trial. 4. 3. The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer, who prepared site plan and recorded statement of witnesses. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid Section against the respondent. The charge against the respondent under aforesaid section was framed to which she denied and claimed trial. 4. To bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses. 5. PW-1 O.P. Singh has deposed in his oral testimony that on 04.07.2006 a trap team was constituted on the complaint of Smt. Rukhsana, pre-trap proceedings were conducted and later on the respondent was arrested for accepting Rs.3,000/-as bribe from the complainant for lodging of first information report. 6. PW-2 complainant Smt. Rukhsana has also deposed in her oral testimony that she made a complaint almost seven years earlier for demand of illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/-by Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer, Mahila Thana Hazratganj, Lucknow for lodging of first information report against her husband. She has proved the complaint exhibit Ka-4 made by her to the Anti Corruption Department. 7. PW-3 Asha Shukla, Lady Constable has proved the G.D. in which the complaint dated 04.07.2006 was registered at Case Crime No.59 of 2006 under Section 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. PW-4 Mohd. Shafi has stated in his deposition that on the complaint of his daughter Smt. Rukhsana, a trap team was constituted, but no money was taken from him. He has further stated that he gave the bribe money to Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer of the police station concerned. He has also deposed that the respondent was not caught red handed before him. 9. PW-5 Mohd. Rafi Khan has substantiated the facts averred by PW-4 deposing that the complainant is his niece and Rs.3,000/-as illegal gratification was demanded from her for lodging first information report. He has also stated that no money was taken from him and the respondent Anju Mishra was not arrested before him. He has further stated that he gave money to Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer. 10. PW-6 Shashank Shekhar had deposed in his oral testimony that the complainant Smt. Rukhsana is his client and on her complaint a trap team was constituted, but no money was taken from him neither the respondent was arrested before him and he also gave the money Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer. 11. 10. PW-6 Shashank Shekhar had deposed in his oral testimony that the complainant Smt. Rukhsana is his client and on her complaint a trap team was constituted, but no money was taken from him neither the respondent was arrested before him and he also gave the money Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer. 11. PW-7 Kuldeep Tripathi was the Trap Laying Officer, who conducted the entire trap proceedings and has stated that when Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer directed Anju Mishra to get the money and she took it out from the right-side window, immediately he arrested the respondent. 12. PW-8 Dr. G.K. Goswami the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Lucknow has proved the prosecuting sanction granted against the respondent for prosecuting her under the aforesaid sections. 13. PW-9 Virendra Singh, Inspector is the Investigating Officer of the present case, who has deposed that after recording of witnesses and completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet exhibit Ka-7 against the appellant. 14. Incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which she denied all of them and stated that she has been falsely implicated as she neither demanded any bribe nor anything was recovered from her possession. 15. The trial court did not find the respondent guilty of offence under the aforesaid sections and accordingly acquitted her. Aggrieved by the verdict of acquittal, the State/appellant preferred the present appeal. 16. Heard Mr. H.S. Bajpai, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant, Mr. Sharad Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 17. Learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant has submitted that the prosecution case has fairly been supported by the oral testimony of the complainant. Learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence as per legal provisions and has acquitted the respondent from the charge level against her. 18. Per contra, Mr. Sharad Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent contended that learned court below has correctly arrived at the conclusion that the alleged incident appears to be doubtful and the prosecution has not adduced any evidence which may establish the guilt of the respondent. The FIR version is neither supported by oral nor by documentary evidence, as such, the learned court below has rightly acquitted the respondent and the impugned judgment warrants no interference. 19. Considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and material on record. 20. The FIR version is neither supported by oral nor by documentary evidence, as such, the learned court below has rightly acquitted the respondent and the impugned judgment warrants no interference. 19. Considered the rival contentions and perused the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and material on record. 20. In the present case, the complainant Smt. Rukhsana lodged a written report with the Anti Corruption Department regarding demand of illegal gratification by Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer, Mahila Thana Hazratganj, Lucknow. In the said complaint, there is no mention of respondent Anju Mishra neither in the perspective of demand nor otherwise. From perusal of the oral testimony of the witnesses adduced by the prosecution, it is obvious that there was no demand as such of illegal gratification by the respondent. PW-1 and PW-7 have stated in their oral testimony that personal search of the respondent was ordered, but the alleged amount of illegal gratification i.e. Rs.3,000/-was given by her from the right-side window of the office. None of the witnesses has stated that they delivered the said amount to Anju Mishra or even that they witnessed the respondent taking the illegal gratification from the complainant. 21. As per the complaint, it is alleged that Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer demanded Rs.10,000/-, which was settled at Rs.3,000/-, but there is no complaint against Anju Mishra. The respondent was not even in the picture till the entire episode of trap took place. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 all of them stated that they handed over the amount of illegal gratification to Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer, which creates doubt as if, who handed over the said amount to Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer. More so when PW-7 has categorically stated that when the complainant handed over the said amount to Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer, she called Anju Mishra to process the application of the complainant and asked the complainant to keep the amount on the window of the office, which again was asked by Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer, to Anju Mishra, for bringing the said amount from the window. Thus, it can apparently be concluded that the respondent neither demanded nor accepted the illegal gratification, at the most she brought the amount from the window to Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer, when she was allegedly arrested by the Trap Laying Officer, though her arrest has not been substantiated by either of the prosecution witness of fact. 22. The entire incidence adduced by the prosecution do not establish any demand, acceptance or recovery of the amount of illegal gratification from the respondent Anju Mishra, more so in light of the fact that from very initial stage, there was no complaint against the respondent by the complainant. The alleged recovery from the window of the office cannot be attributed to the respondent as it was not recovered from the personal search of Anju Mishra. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. 23. In view of the above discussion, it is difficult to apprehend the circumstance in which the charge under Section 7/13(2)D Prevention of Corruption Act can be levelled against the respondent. The reason given by the trial curt for acquittal of the respondent appears to be sufficient and do not call for any interference. 24. The learned trial court after scanning and analysing the entire evidence available on record has recorded its finding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, the trial court has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has not produced sufficient evidence and on the basis of evidence produced by the respondent, incident appears to be doubtful. The finding recorded by the trial court for acquitting the respondent does not call for any interference by this Court. 25. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.