Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 730 (JHR)

State v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-03

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the accused opposite party No. 2. 2. The appellant-State is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 26th of September, 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX-cum-Spl. Judge (Vigilance), Dhanbad, in Special Case No. 09 of 1988, whereby the accused O.P. No. 2, who had faced the trial, for the offences under Sections 7/13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, has been acquitted after the trial. 3. The present appeal has been filed after the delay of 315 days, and for condonation of this delay, I.A. No. 6726 of 2015 has been filed, stating therein that the delay was due to procedural delays in taking the approval of the different authorities for filing the appeal. Another I.A. No. 82 of 2016 has been filed for staying the operation of the impugned Judgment of acquittal dated 26th of September, 2014, passed in Special Case No. 9 of 1988. It may be stated that even though the appeal was filed on 7.11.2015 itself, but till date, no application, seeking leave to appeal against the impugned Judgment of acquittal has been filed by the State. 4. The impugned Judgment shows that there was allegation against the accused O.P. No. 2, who was working as Circle Officer, Gola, to have demanded the bribe of Rs. 6,000/-, for the mutation work from the informant in the case. It is alleged that after some negotiations in presence of the Sub-Inspector of the Vigilance Department, who was making preliminary enquiry about the correctness of the allegation, the accused O.P. No. 2 had accepted Rs. 500/- and had agreed to accept further amount of Rs. 500/- on a subsequent date, on which, a raid was conducted and the appellant was apprehended red handed and the money was also recovered. Both the hands and left pocket of shirt of the accused O.P. No. 2 were washed with the solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned into pink colour. On the basis of these materials, the appellant was put to trial. 5. Both the hands and left pocket of shirt of the accused O.P. No. 2 were washed with the solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned into pink colour. On the basis of these materials, the appellant was put to trial. 5. The impugned Judgment, acquitting the accused O.P. No. 2 enumerates six grounds for holding the accused O.P. No. 2 not guilty and acquitting him of the charge, which are as follows:- "(i) Non existence of sanction order by the competent authority which has not been brought on the record by the prosecution. No reason whatsoever is assigned for the non production of sanction order, (ii) The two key witness the complainant Mukar Mahto and his relative Budhdeo Mahto turned hostile in the court at the time of their evidence, (iii) Seizure witness who is only independent witness also did not support the prosecution case, (iv) Non examination of investigating officer Saryu Ram who is supposed to be very important key witness of the case and non examination of Saryu Ram cuts the very root of prosecution case. (v) The charge was framed u/s 7/13(2) r/w section 13(i)(d) of P.C. Act, 1988 and at the time of commission of occurrence i.e. on 25.6.1988 the new act is not in existence. (vi) There was no any document neither oral or documentary to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 500/- by the accused person." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submits that the impugned Judgment, passed by the learned Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the seizure made from the accused O.P. No. 2. 7. Learned counsel for the accused O.P. No. 2 has opposed the prayer. 8. In the facts of the case, though we find that the first ground cited by the Trial Court below, may not be valid ground for acquittal of the accused, as sanction may not be required for prosecution of the Government servant on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe, but the fact remains that two key witnesses, the informant and his relative, as also the seizure list witness, had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case at all. Even the Investigating Officer, whose evidence was considered to be very important to the case, was not examined by the prosecution. Even the Investigating Officer, whose evidence was considered to be very important to the case, was not examined by the prosecution. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned Judgment, passed by the learned Trial Court below, cannot be said to be suffering from such patent illegality, so as to call for any interference by this Court in reversing the Judgment of acquittal. 9. We also find from the record that even though the appeal was filed on 7.11.2015 itself, but no application, seeking leave to appeal, has yet been filed by the State, in absence of which, this acquittal appeal cannot be entertained. 10. We further find no cogent reason for condoning the delay of 315 days in filing the appeal, only on the ground of procedural delay. As this appeal is against the Judgment of acquittal, there can be no occasion for staying the operation of the impugned Judgment. As such, both the interlocutory applications, i.e., I.A. No. 6726 of 2015 and I.A. No. 82 of 2016, filed for condonation of delay as well as for staying the operation of the impugned Judgment of acquittal, stand dismissed. 11. Consequently, this acquittal appeal also stands dismissed being bereft of any merit, and also being barred by limitation.