STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. DHARAM CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by grant of special leave is against the order of acquittal of the respondent who was prosecuted for an offence under section 161 Indian Penal Code and under S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge before whom the trial took place acquitted the respondent after appreciating evidence and circumstances.

(2.) The learned Judge on the basis of material produced came to the conclusion that on the date on which the trap was laid the respondent-accused had no jurisdiction on the shop of the complainant nor the licence of the complainant was subsisting. Under these circumstances, the respondent-accused was not in a position to take any action against the complainant and in the light of these circumstances the learned Special Judge appreciated the evidence.

(3.) Admittedly Sukkan Singh the complainant was an accomplice. The independent evidence was a Vigilance Inspector and two independent witnesses but the prosecution chose not to examine the two independent witnesses and therefore the only witness who could be said to be independent and was examined was the Vigilance Inspector.