STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. UDAI NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State of U. P. is in appeal against the Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Criminal Revision No. 177 of 1998 and Criminal Revision No. 225 of 1998. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court allowed both the revisions, filed by the accused and discharged the accused persons.

(3.) Accused Udai Narayan is an officer of the Customs Department and accused Reshamwala is a private individual. It is alleged by the prosecution that the Customs Authorities at Jaipur seized a sum of Rs. 21,23,050/- from said Reshamwala and on that score the matter is pending before the Collector, Customs and Central Excise. Accused Udai Narayan is the Additional Collector of Customs at Lucknow. It is further alleged that on 8-11-93 Reshamwala arrived at Lucknow Airport by Indian Airlines' Flight. The Police had received an information that some illegal transaction is going to be made between Reshamwala and Udai Narayan and, therefore, the D.S.P. had arranged a trap. As soon as, Reshamwala came out of the aircraft and entered the airport lobby, he was received by Udai Narayan and then there was some conversation between them which was heard by some persons in the vicinity, who have been examined by the prosecution. It is further alleged that Reshamwala went in the personal Fiat Car of Udai Narayan, whereas the official car of Udai Narayan was occupied by the other officials. The Fiat Car, being driven to by Udai Narayan and having Reshamwala with him was intercepted by the Police authorities and when the brief case of said Reshamwala was opened, a sum of Rs. two lacs was recovered. It was the prosecution case that Udai Narayan earlier had telephoned Reshamwala and told him to come with necessary case papers and a sum of Rs. two lacs, so that his pending case at Jaipur could be settled. On these allegations, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both the accused persons under Sections 8, 10, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused persons moved application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge, before the learned special Judge, Anti Corruption. The said learned special Judge rejected that petition by order dated 13th May, 1998. Against the said order, the accused persons moved the High Court in revision. The High Court by the impugned order having allowed both the revisions and having discharged the accused persons, the State has come up in appeal.