STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. SHED HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, State is assailing judgment and order dtd. 20/4/2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna thereby acquitting respondent from charges under Ss. 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Complainant PW1 Sugrabi Aliyas Khan Pathan had approached accused, Assistant Sub-Inspector, posted at Murgi Talav Police Station to lodge complaint against accused Gulab Khan, who had quarreled with her son and indulged in fight with him. Accused, according to prosecution, refused to entertain complaint and rather demanded Rs.1,000.00 to register complaint. After bargain, accused allegedly agreed to accept Rs.1,000.00 in two installments of Rs.500.00 each and accordingly, complainant agreed to pay Rs.500.00 on next day. However, as complainant PW1 Sugrabi was reluctant to pay bribe, she approached Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) authorities, who planned trap by arranging pancha, given necessary instructions. Both PW1 Sugrabi and PW2 Vijaymala, shadow pancha were made to approach accused, handover bribe amount on demand, relay predetermined signal and thereafter, trap was to be executed. Accordingly, trap was laid and accused was apprehended. PW3 Bhokre, Investigating Officer carried out investigation and after gathering sufficient evidence, he chargesheeted accused. Accused was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna vide Special Case PCA No.2 of 2002 wherein prosecution adduced evidence of in all three witnesses and sought reliance on documentary evidence. After hearing respective parties, learned trial Judge drew points for determination, appreciated evidence adduced by each of the side and finally reached to a finding that prosecution failed to bring home the charges and hence, by judgment and order dtd. 20/4/2005, acquitted accused. Feeling aggrieved by the same, State has preferred instant appeal on receipt of leave to file appeal.

(3.) Learned APP reiterated the foundational facts of the case as stated above and criticized the judgment on the ground that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its correct perspective. He would strenuously submit that complaint was duly noted, Investigating Officer had planned and laid trap and necessary instructions were given to PW1 Sugrabi and PW2 Vijaymala, who are consistent and lending support to each other. He pointed out that, they both are consistent on the points of demand, offer as well as acceptance. He pointed out that, on directions of accused, PW1 Sugrabi has kept money in the bag and tainted currency was recovered from the same. He also took this Court through the cross-examination of PW1 Suigrabi and PW2 Vijaymala and would strenuously submit that their evidence in examination-in-chief has remained undisturbed and intact. That, there was questioning to complainant about money being brought or not. Therefore, with such quality of evidence, it is his submission that learned trial Court ought to have accepted the prosecution case. That, evidence of the Investigating Officer, who was instrumental in arranging the trap, executing the trap and apprehending the accused, is a value addition to the evidence of PW1 Sugrabi and PW2 Vijaymala. Therefore, it is his submission that case of prosecution was proved beyond reasonable doubt, however, the same has not been considered and appreciated and rather accused has been acquitted and hence, he questions the maintainability of the impugned order and urges to set aside the same by allowing the appeal.