THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. AMARJEET MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on admission.

(2.) THE State through S.P.E., Lokayukt has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6.2.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Satna in special case No.2/2012, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and evidence adduced before the trial Court, it would be apparent that the complainant Narendra Kumar Tiwari (P.W.1) has turned hostile. He has informed that his talks could not take place with the respondent and he applied for duplicate ''Rin Pustika '' with help of his employer Kamal Goyal and Kamal Goyal was arranging for duplicate Rin Pustika. Devendra Tiwari (P.W.4) who was authorized witness did not support the prosecution's story in toto. He could not remember so many things done during the trap proceedings but, Brijesh Kumar Mishra (P.W.6) has stated that a trap was arranged and prior to the arrangement of the trap, micro cassette was also heard and thereafter, so many memos were prepared by the S.P.E. However, it is not the prosecution's case that the accused/respondent took the bribe during the trap. Under such circumstances, trap relating to demand of Rs.1,500/ - by the respondent turned failure and by such a failed trap, no evidence is created against the respondent.