PRAKASH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 14.1.83 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bikaner in Anti-corruption case No. 1/78. By the judgment aforesaid, accused appellant was not found guilty of offence under section 161 Penal Code and Under section 5(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and however was found guilty of offence Sec. 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Sec. 109 IPC. The learned trial court, after discussing the evidence, came to the conclusion that accused appellant was not guilty of the charged offence under Sec. 161 Penal Code and Sec. 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that offence under Sec. 161 Penal Code and Sec. 5(1)(d)(2) of the Act is not proved. However, he deemed it(sic).

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner also urges that there was no charge framed against him under Sec. 109 read with Sec. 161 Penal Code and Sec. 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was simply charged for the offence of accepting bribe, but the learned Special Judge has convicted the accused appellant for abetting the offence: A serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner because there was no notice of charge of abetting the offence. He had a notice of committing the offence of accepting illegal gratification. According to the prosecution story, money was demanded by Bhanwar Lal and at the instance of Bhanwar Lal, petitioner received the to money and passed it on to Bhanwar Lal. The prosecution case is clear and it is unambiguous that petitioner did not retain any part of money. Interestingly, Bhanwar Lal has not been prosecuted for want of sanction and are this background, learned counsel for the petitioner states that principal offender has not been prosecuted for want of sanction. The is present petitioner could not have been convicted for abetting him to accept the illegal gratification.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to controvert this fact that no charge under Sec. 109 read with 161 Penal Code and Sec. 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed. Once it has been held that no charge was framed, then a serious prejudice can be seen. In absence of main offender of the trial, no conviction could possibly be passed more particularity when main offender was not at trial against the appellant for want of sanction. No reason has come forward for not obtaining sanction to Bhanwar Lal who demanded and accepted money. In these circumstances, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Consequently, appeal is accepted. he is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Sentence and conviction passed against him are set aside. He is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal allowed.