STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LEKHRAJ SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2011 passed by Judge, Designated Court of Rajasthan, Ajmer(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 12/2008, whereby the learned Trial Court has recorded an order of acquittal of the accused-respondent, Lekhraj Saini, who was charged of the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988').

(2.) THE background, in which the accused-respondent was accused of and tried for the aforesaid offences, is that the accused-respondent Lekhraj Saini at the relevant time was working on the post of Patwari, Patwar Halka Tikawada, Tehsil Kishangarh. In Tikawada, complainant Mohd. Ayub Khan purchased ten Bighas of agricultural land in the name of his wife Smt. Rajia Begum and contacted the accused-respondent for the purpose of transfer of the said land in the name of his wife for which the accused-respondent demanded Rs. 1,500/- as bribe from the complainant. On 18.09.2006, complainant Mohd. Ayub Khan submitted a report to this effect in the office of Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ajmer. Thereafter, on 19.09.2006 trap proceedings were undertaken and the accused-respondent was caught red handed. Thereafter, after completing the other formalities, sanction against the accused-respondent was obtained and thereafter, after completion of investigation, a charge sheet for aforesaid offences was filed against the accused-respondent. After following the due procedure, the Trial Court took the cognizance against the accused-respondent of the offences under Section Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and the trial, thereafter, commenced. After hearing the arguments of both the sides and examining the evidence on record, learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2011, acquitted the accused-respondent.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused supported the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court and submitted that demand and acceptance both are not proved by the prosecution in this case and decoy has also been declared hostile, therefore, the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is absolutely just, legal and proper.