STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. MOHAMMAD JIBRAILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been moved by the State against the judgment dtd. 28/8/2008 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short -the PC Act-), Durg, (C.G.) in Special Case No.2/2000, whereby the Special Judge has acquitted the Respondent/accused of the charges under Ss. 7,9,13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.

(2.) According to the case of the prosecution, the Respondent/accused was appointed as a licence surveyor by the Insurance Regulatory of Government of India. He was entrusted by the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Bhilai to survey the vehicle of complainant Balwant Singh (PW9) bearing registration number MP24/GC/0028. Allegedly, to settle the claim, the Respondent/accused demanded Rs.5,000.00 as bribe from the complainant which the complainant was not ready to give him. He informed about the demand to Special Police Establishment, Raipur. On receipt of the complaint, officials of the Special Police Establishment gave him a tape recorder to record the conversation to be done between him and the Respondent/accused, upon which he again contacted the Respondent/accused personally as well as telephonically to show his readiness for giving bribe of Rs.5,000.00. The conversation was also recorded by him. The Respondent/accused asked him to come at Bhilai Hotel on 1/9/1999. On the basis of the information received from the complainant, Special Police Establishment arranged a trap. A trap party was constituted. After completion of other formalities, the trap party went to the house of the Respondent/ accused, where the complainant entered inside and thereafter came out from the house and gave a signal to the trap party. The trap party rushed inside the house of the Respondent/accused. Having seen them, the Respondent/accused speedily went inside his bedroom and after some time he came out from there. Members of the trap party asked him to produce the received currency notes of bribe. At the instance of the information received from the Respondent/accused, the currency notes were recovered from a book-shelf of the Respondent/accused. After completion of other necessary formalities and investigation, a charge-sheet was fled before the Special Court. The Special Court framed charges. Total 13 witnesses were examined before the Special Court against the Respondent/accused. In examination under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., the Respondent/accused denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. No witness was examined in his defence. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondent/accused giving him beneft of doubt. It was held by the Special Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe money. Hence, the instant appeal by the State against the acquittal.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the State/Appellant submitted that the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the Respondent/accused as investigation officer R.K. Rai (PW13) and other witness N.S. Rajput (PW10) have supported all the proceedings of the trap. It was further submitted that complainant Balwant Singh (PW9) has also supported the case of the prosecution but the Court below has erroneously dis-believed his evidence. It was further argued that including N.S. Rajput (PW10) and R.K. Rai (PW13), J.S. Jangi (PW11) has also corroborated the case of the prosecution.