STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. ANJU MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 26.03.2016 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.Act), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.35 of 2006 (State of U.P. v. Anju Mishra) arising out of Case Crime No.59 of 2006 under Section 7/13(2)D Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Mahila Thana Hazratganj, District Lucknow, whereby the respondent Anju Mishra has been acquitted for the offence punishable under the aforesaid Section.

(2.) Narrated concisely, the prosecution case is that the complainant Smt. Rukhsana was married to Salman @ Pappu two years before as per Muslims rites. Her father performed the marriage as per his capacity and status, but her in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry and used to torture her mentally and physically, as such, since last one year she is residing with her parents. In this context, on 02.07.2006, she went to Mahila Thana Hazratganj, District Lucknow to lodge a report against her husband, where Smt. Shakuntala Upadhyay, Station House Officer directed her to go one Kamlesh, who demanded Rs. 10,000/- to lodge first information report. Later on, after bargaining it was settled at Rs. 3,000/-. On this premise, the complainant moved a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, State of U.P., Lucknow, who ordered for confidential inquiry, her statement was recorded on 04.07.2006 by Shri O.P. Singh and accordingly, a trap team was constituted. It has further been alleged that she gave Rs. 3,000/- in the form of six currency notes of 500 each to Shri O.P. Sngh, which were treated accordingly and pre-trap proceedings were conducted and the team reached the police station concerned. When she entered the premises of Mahila Thana again she was directed to Anju Mishra, whom she gave Rs. 3,000/-, which was recovered by the team member from right-side window near the seat of Anju Mishra. Accordingly respondent was arrested at the spot and a case was registered at Case Crime No.59 of 2006 under Section 7/13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused-respondent.

(3.) The case was investigated by the Investigating Officer, who prepared site plan and recorded statement of witnesses. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under the aforesaid Section against the respondent. The charge against the respondent under aforesaid section was framed to which she denied and claimed trial.