STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court of Madras dated 30th October, 1992. The Trial Court (Special judge) , Tiruchirapalli tried the respondents for offences under S. 161 I. P. C. and under s. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (l) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act and vide Judgment and order dated 15th October, 1986 convicted and sentenced them for the said offences. They were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) We have perused the judgment of the high Court and our attention has also been drawn to some parts of the evidence. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the high Court, cannot be said to be even unreasonable, let alone perverse. The very factum of demand of bribe and the circumstances under which the said demand was made, as alleged by the prosecution, is suspect.

(3.) According to the prosecution case it was respondent No. 1 who detained public Witness s. 2 and 3 at the police station, stating that unless gemini (PW-7) , who was wanted in another case of distilling illicit arrack, was produced, they would not be released. Public Witness -3 was, however, let off with a direction to bring Gemini (PW-7) to the police station, and, in the meanwhile, Public Witness -2 was detained at the police station. Public Witness -3 returned to the police station and reported to respondent No. 1 that public Witness -1 who also was running a licensed arrack shop, and public Witness 2 could help him to secure public Witness -7 gemini. Public Witness -7, Gemini was thereafter identified and apprehended by the police party. PWs 2 and 3, according to the prosecution case, despite the earlier assurance of being released, were, however, not released even after presence of Gemini, Public Witness -7 had been secured.