STATE OF J&K Vs. ABDUL AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgement of acquittal of respondent-accused dtd. 31/1/2017, recorded by the Special Judge Anticorruption, Srinagar (for brevity "Trial Court") on File no.07/Challan titled as State v. Abdul Aziz Mir (FIR no.03/2010 for offences punishable under Sec. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 read with Sec. 161 RPC registered in police station VOK), with a prayer to set-aside the same.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

(3.) Mr Hilal A. Wani, AAG, appearing for appellant, has stated that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence produced by prosecution in its right perspective; even the Trial Court laid much emphasis on mere discrepancies while overlooking the incriminating evidence both oral as well as documentary, which was sufficient to hold respondent-accused guilty of offence of criminal misconduct by abuse of his official position in the capacity of public servant. According to counsel for appellant, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove that respondent-accused accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.1500.00, which was subsequently recovered from his possession at the time of occurrence and that prosecution witnesses confirmed and proved in one voice the recovery of bribe money from the backside of the cash counter, the receipt of tainted amount by accused was substantiated by positive handwash of accused, which established guilt of respondent-accused beyond any shadow of doubt, but these important aspects have been ignored by the Trial Court. It is also contended that independent witness has corroborated the meeting of complainant with accused, who was waiting for him, flashing of prefixed signal by complainant and recovery from the backside of cash counter of the hotel, besides turning of handwash of accused and thus has confirmed the handling of phenolphthalein simmered currency notices by accused, but this trustworthy and cogent evidence has not been appreciated by the Trial Court. He avers that even Trial Court did not appreciate testimony of prosecution witnesses including members of trap team, who proved basic essentials of the offence of criminal misconduct sufficient to hold respondent-accused guilty, and Trial Court has not given any weightage and credence to the depositions of the complainant and independent witness as well as other witnesses including investigating officer.