STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MUMTAZ ALI QURESI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant application under Sec. 378(1) read with Sec. 378(3) Crimial P.C., the State of Rajasthan has approached this Court craving leave to file an appeal against the judgment dated 16.9.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Criminal Case No.22/2008 acquitting the respondent accused from the offences under Sec. 7/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 201 I.P.C.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the respondent Mumtaz Ali was working as a public prosecutor in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bikaner at the relevant point of time. A criminal case involving charge of rape with the daughter of one Shri Damodar Meghwal was instituted in the said court. The accused Satya Narayan was acquitted by the court upon which, Damodar, father of the victim approached the respondent herein for filing an appeal in the appellate court against the judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused. The respondent allegedly demanded a bribe of"rupi foradian"Rs.5000.00 for filing the appeal and refused to do so in case, the amount was not paid. The complainant was not desirous of giving bribe and accordingly he approached the Anti Corruption Bureau Outpost Bikaner and submitted a report on 25.4.2007 expressing his desire to have the respondent trapped with the bribe money. Upon this report, verification of alleged demand was conducted. After verification was done, the complainant was sent to the court premises at Bikaner on 26.4.2007 for passing on the bribe amount to the tune of"rupi foradian"Rs.5,000.00 to the respondent herein. It is further alleged that the respondent herein took the sum of"rupi foradian"Rs.5000.00 from the complainant and then, on his pleading, returned a sum of"rupi foradian"Rs.1000.00 to the complainant and placed the remaining notes worth"rupi foradian"Rs.4000.00 in the drawer of his table. Upon this, the complainant gave the pre-arranged signal to the trap party which reached at the respondent's table and confronted him about the acceptance of bribe on which the respondent became perturbed and accepted that he had taken a sum of"rupi foradian"Rs.4000.00 for filing an appeal. The trap party started proceedings for washing the hands of the respondent and was preparing to recover the trap money upon which, the respondent raised a hue and cry and a crowd of 60-65 advocates collected and created a ruckus. They managed to whisk Mumtaz Ali away from the scene of the offence. The bribe money and the file lying in the table of Mumtaz Ali were also taken by an advocate. The bar room was locked up. Thereupon, the officials of ACB had to return empty handed. As the trap party was obstructed from performance of their duties, Mr.Anand Vyas, Inspector, ACB submitted an FIR No.164/2007 at P.S. Sadar, Bikaner for the offences under Sections 332, 353 and 143 Penal Code against unknown persons. FIR No.144/2007 was registered against Mumtaz Ali for the offences under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

(3.) After investigation of the present case, the Bureau filed a charge-sheet against the respondent herein for the offences under Sec. 7/13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 201 IPC. The learned trial Judge framed charges against the respondent for these offences. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case. The respondent denied the prosecution allegations in his statement under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. He had no authority to file an appeal in any case of acquittal. He was simply authorised to give his opinion. He had already forwarded his opinion in relation to the judgment of acquittal of Satya Narayan within the stipulated time and no work was pending with him in relation to the said case on the day of trap proceeding. He specifically pleaded that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from Mr. Damodar nor did he return him a sum of"rupi foradian"Rs.1,000.00. However, no evidence was led in defence.