The courts must examine the evidence with extreme caution before recording a conviction under the terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act: Chhattisgarh High Court
When a person is convicted under the terms of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it carries with it a social stigma as well as substantial implications for the service provided. At the same time, it should be observed that there can be no clear proposal as to whether the trial court’s opinion is a feasible view or not, and each case must be decided on its own merits, taking into account the facts on record. The judgment was passed by The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Rohit Kumar Sahu  V. State of Madhya Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No.2618 of 1999] by a Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) as under Section 7 of the Act, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, with Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000 with default stipulation. Learned Counsel for the Appellant first submitted that the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant obtained from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department, Bhopal is invalid and, therefore, the entire case of the prosecution vitiates. It was argued that according to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act, it is necessary that the sanction for prosecution must be given by the authority competent to remove the person appointed. A Patwari is appointed under Section 104 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 by the Collector and, therefore, the Collector is the competent authority to remove a Patwari. According to the learned counsel, it is submitted that before the Trial Court this objection was raised, but the Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment, overlooked this fact and, therefore, there is a failure of justice. Opposing the above arguments, Learned Counsel for the Respondent supported the impugned judgment. Further, he pleaded to reject the petition. While relying on the State of T.N. v. N. Vijayakumar, the court held that “Before recording conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once a conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same time, it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not, there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits, having regard to evidence on record.”
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.26199 Judgment Reserved on : 22.2 . 2021 Judgment Delivered on : 9.6.2021 Rohit Kumar Sahu son of Jhunauram Sahu aged about 52 years Patwari Halka No.104 Revenue Circle Lawan Village Badjar District Raipur M.P now Chhattisgarh) State of Madhya Pradesh through the Lokayukt Special Police Establishment M.P. Bhopal M.P Appellant Respondent For Appellant : Dr. N.K. Shukla Senior Advocate with Shri Arjit Tiwari Advocate For Respondent : Shri Priyanshu Gupta Panel Lawyer Hon ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel C.A.V. JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 20.9.1999 passed by the Special Judge Raipur in Special Case No.93 whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 as under: Under Section 7 of the Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000 with Under Section 13(1)(d read with Section 13(2) of the Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000 with Both the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently According to the case of prosecution at the relevant time the Appellant was working as a Patwari of Patwari Halka No.104 Village Lawan. In favour of Complainant Baburam the Tahsildar passed an order for correction in the relevant mutation record. On 28.10.1988 the Complainant met with the Appellant and talked for the correction. The Appellant demanded bribe of Rs.250 and asked him to bring the bribe money by 1.11.1988 Since the Complainant did not want to give the bribe on 1.11.1988 he made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police Lokayukta Raipur. On the basis of Ex.P3 Dehati Nalishi Ex.P11) was registered. Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwariand R.P. Sharma PW4). The panch witnesses verified the contents of the complaint Ex.P3) from the Complainant. The Complainant produced 2 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100 and 1 currency note in the denomination of Rs.50 for giving as bribe. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The panch witnesses and the Complainant were given a demonstration of trap proceedings. Thereafter a trap party proceeded to Village Bagbooda. Ajay Awasthi and Complainant Baburamwent to the house of the Appellant situated at Village Bagbooda. In his house the Appellant was sitting in the outside courtyard. A conversation took place between Complainant Baburam and the Appellant and thereafter Baburamgave the bribe money to the Appellant to which the Appellant kept in the pocket of his kurta. Complainant Baburam PW6) came out of the courtyard and gave a signal to the trap party on which the trap party went to the spot and caught the Appellant The bribe money was recovered from the pocket of the kurta of the Appellant. Hands of the Appellant were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink The kurta of the Appellant and the recovered tainted money were also dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which their colour turned into pink. On completion of other formalities the trap party returned to the Lokayukta office. During investigation sanction for prosecution of the Appellant was obtained from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs Bhopal. On completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges To bring home the offence the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the guilt pleaded innocence and false implication. It was the defence of the Appellant before the Trial Court that he never demanded any bribe nor did he accept the money as bribe Virtually the demand of bribe was made by the Revenue Inspector and to save the Revenue Inspector a false and fabricated case has been prepared against him. At the time of trap the Complainant had deliberately put the bribe money into the pocket of his kurta and soon thereafter the trap party entered there and caught him. It was the further defence of the Appellant that the sanctionfor prosecution of the Appellant obtained from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal is invalid and therefore the entire case of the prosecution vitiates. It was argued that according to the provisions of Section 19 of the Act it is necessary that the sanction for prosecution must be given by the authority competent to remove the person appointed. A Patwari is appointed under Section 104 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 by the Collector and therefore the Collector is the competent authority to remove a Patwari. In this regard reliance was placed upon the judgments of Madhya Pradesh High Court in 1994) 2 MPJR 58 (2010) 4 MPLJ 439and5 MPLJ 545for prosecution was obtained from the Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal who was not the appointing and removing authority of the Appellant Patwari the sanctionis not valid. According to the Senior Advocate before the Trial Court also this objection was raised but the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment overlooked this fact and therefore there is a failure of justice Thus the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable. It was further submitted that in this case the demand of bribe is also not proved. None of the panch witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the Appellant. Mere recovery of tainted money from the Appellant is not sufficient to prove the offence in question. Opposing the above arguments Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent State supported the impugned judgment. I have heard the rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties and perused the entire material available including the statements of witnesses and the documents relied upon by the prosecution with due care. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time the Appellant was posted as a Patwari in Patwari Halka No.104 Village Lawan. It is also not in dispute that the sanctionfor prosecution was accorded by the Additional Secretary Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal. With regard to the sanction it would be appropriate to reproduce herein the provisions of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which read thus: Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1 No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections7 10 11 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 — in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government of that Government in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government of that Government in the case of any other person of the authority competent to remove him from his office 2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub sectionNotwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973— no finding sentence or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of or any error omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub section unless in the opinion of that court a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority unless it is satisfied that such error omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry trial appeal or other proceedings 4) In determining under sub sectionwhether the absence of or any error omission or irregularity in such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings Explanation.—For the purpose of this section — error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar With regard to the appointment of a Patwari the provisions of Section 104 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code 1959 read as “104. Formation of patwaris’ circles and appointment of patwaris thereto—(1) The Collector shall from time to time arrange the villages of the tahsil in partwari circles and may at any time alter the limits of any existing circle and may create new circles or abolish existing ones 2) The Collector shall appoint one or more patwaris to each patwari circle for the maintenance and correction of land records and for such other duties as the State Government may prescribe. 3) Notwithstanding any usage or anything contained in any treaty grant or other instrument no person shall have any right or claim to continue or to be appointed as a patwari on the ground of right to succeed to such office by inheritance.” In Chandramani Prasad caseit was held that the power to appoint a Patwari is conferred upon the Collector under Section 104(2) of the LR Code. It was also held that the Patwari so removed shall have right to appeal and revision under the provisions of the LR Code. Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ravindra Kumar Gupta case held that the Sub Divisional Officer has the authority to exercise powers of the Collector under Section 104(2) of the LR Code regarding appointment of a Patwari It was further held that apparently as the Sub Divisional Officer has the power to appoint a Patwari he subsequently also has the power to dismiss services of a Patwari. In Ashok Kumar case it was held by the Learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as under: Admittedly the respondent No.1 is a Patwari. The appointment of Patwari is being made u s 104(2) of the M.P Land Revenue Code 1959 which reads as under “104. Formation of Patwaris’ circles and appointment of The Collector shall appoint one or more Patwaris to each Patwari circle for the maintenance and correction of land records and for such other duties as the State Government may prescribe Thus the appointing authority of Patwari is the Collector and not the State Government. Though it has not been specifically mentioned that who can remove the services of the Patwari but by virtue of Section 16 of the M.P. General Clauses Act the power to appoint includes the power to suspend or dismiss Therefore the power vests in Collector to remove and terminate the services of the Patwari So as to attract the provision contained in sub section of Section 197 Cr.P.C three conditions are pre supposed. Firstly the person should be a public servant secondly he should not be removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government and thirdly the offence should have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. All these three conditions should co exist. In the present case the respondent No.1 who is a Patwari is neither appointed by the State Government nor can be removed by it and thus the exemption under sub sectionof Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not attracted.” On perusal of the provisions of Section 104(2) of the LR Code and having regard to the above view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court it is clear that with regard to appointment of a Patwari the Collector is the competent authority and therefore the Collector only is the competent authority for grant of sanction for prosecution against a Patwari. But in the instant case the prosecution has not obtained the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant Patwari from the concerned Collector. Rather the prosecution has obtained the sanctionfrom the Additional Secretary Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal Therefore the sanction is not a valid sanction for prosecution of the Appellant Patwari. From perusal of the impugned judgment it is also clear that this point was raised by the defence also before the Trial Court but ignoring this point the Trial Court discussing that how a sanction for prosecution can be proved has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the sanction in accordance with law. Whether the Additional Secretary Law and Legislative Affairs Department Bhopal was the competent authority to grant the sanction for prosecution of the Appellant Patwari or not no discussion has been made by the Trial Court in this regard nor has any finding been given by it in this regard. Therefore I am of the considered view that a failure of justice has occurred in this case. While dealing with the issue of demand and acceptance of bribe money in 3 SCC 779 the Supreme Court held thus: In Suraj Mal v. State(1979) 4 SCC 725 this Court took the view thatmere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.” In13 SCC 55it was held by the Supreme Court as under: Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. 15 SCC 1 and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI 3 SCC 779 In the present case the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaintbefore LW 9 and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P 11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are therefore inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i andis concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) andof the Act. In any event it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly In 10 SCC 152 the Supreme Court held as follows: In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act it has been underlined in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. 13 SCC 55 in unequivocal terms that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) andof the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand thus has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act which permits a presumption as envisaged therein it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) andof the Act it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification it was emphasised could follow only if there was proof of demand. Axiomatically it was held that in absence of proof of demand such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise The proof of demand of illegal gratification thus is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i and of the Act and in absence thereof unmistakably the charge therefor would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof dehors the proof of demand ipso facto would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder.” “13. With reference to the abovementioned rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record we have examined the concurrent finding of the fact on the charge made against the appellant. It has been continuously held by this Court in a catena of cases after interpretation of the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act that the demand of illegal gratification by the accused is the sine qua non for constituting an offence under the provisions of the Act. Thus the burden to prove the accusation against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act with regard to the acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant PW2 lies on the prosecution.” Further in11 SCC 314it was held by the Supreme Court as under: Reiterating the judgment of B. Jayaraj case and P Satyanarayana Murthy case again in 3 SCC 108 Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi) it was held by the Supreme Court thus: It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. 13 SCC 55 A. Subair v. State of Kerala 6 SCC 587 and P Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. 10 SCC 152 upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant.” In paragraph 39 it was further held by the Supreme Court thus: In view of the aforesaid reasons the approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Jai Bhagwanby the appellant though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him The prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainant Jai Bhagwanwhich is the sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law and therefore liable to be set Recently in 3 SCC 687reiterating the judgment of C.M. Girish Babu case it was held by the Supreme Court as It is equally well settled that mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused Reference can be made to the judgments of this Court in C.M Girish Babu v. CBI 3 SCC 779 and in B. Jayaraj v State of A.P. 13 SCC 55. In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while considering the case under Sections 7 13(1)(d i) and of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 it is reiterated that to prove the charge it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence. In the said judgments it is also held that even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is also fairly well settled that initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial The relevant paras 7 8 and 9 of the judgment in B Jayaraj v. State of A.P. 13 SCC 55 read as under:15 SCC 1 and C.M Girish Babu v. CBI 3 SCC 779 In the present case the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint Ext.P 11) before LW9 and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Ext. P 11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are therefore inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d i) andis concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) andof the High Court is fit to be set aside. Before recording conviction under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act the courts have to take utmost care in scanning the evidence. Once conviction is recorded under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act it casts a social stigma on the person in the society apart from serious consequences on the service rendered. At the same time it is also to be noted that whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view or not there cannot be any definite proposition and each case has to be judged on its own merits having regard to evidence on record.” In the light of above view taken by the Supreme Court now I shall examine the facts and statements of the witnesses of the present case. With regard to the initial demand Complainant Baburam PW6) deposed that for correction in the mutation record when he met with the Appellant at that time the Revenue Inspector was also present there. At that time the Appellant Patwari asked him to come after 2 4 days. When he again met with the Appellant he demanded a sum of Rs.250. On this he made the written complaint in the Lokayukta Office. In his cross examination this witness further deposed that the demand of Rs.250 made by the Appellant was for him was not known to him He did not know the demand was for the Appellant himself or for the Revenue Inspector. Nowhere in his deposition this witness stated that for what purpose the demand was made by the Appellant. In his examination in chief this witness further deposed that the written complaintsubmitted by him was not read by any of the panch witnesses. But both panch witnesses Ajay Awasthi and R.P. Sharma deposed that they had read the complaint and verified its content from Complainant Baburamalong with Complainant Baburamentered the house of the Appellant and there Complainant Baburamgave the bribe money to the Appellant and at that time Ajay Awasthi was present there. On this point Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwariand other panch witness R.P. Sharma stated that along with Complainant Baburampanch witness Ajay Awasthideposed that he alone had entered the house of the Appellant and Ajay Awasthihad stayed outside about 100 metres away from him. Ajay Awasthialso supported the above statement of Complainant Baburamand deposed that Complainant Baburamalone had entered the house of the Appellant and he had stayed about 70 80 feet away from the house of the Appellant. Ajay Awasthifurther deposed that neither any conversation regarding transaction of bribe money took place in his presence nor did he witness the alleged transaction of bribe money between the Complainant and the Appellant. Thus it is clear that on this point statements of all the above prosecution witnesses are totally contradictory. From the Court statements of the above witnesses it is clear that none of the panch witnesses had entered the house of the Appellant nor did any of them witness the alleged transaction of bribe money between the Complainant and the Appellant or hear any conversation took place between the Complainant and the Appellant regarding bribe. In paragraph 5 of his cross examination Complainant Baburam PW6) admitted the fact that when he entered the courtyard of the house of the Appellant at that time Hansu Sahu Resham Satnami Jethu Sahu and Khilawan Vishwakarma were also sitting there along with the Appellant. Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwari PW11) also admitted this fact. But none of the above 4 persons sitting along with the Appellant in the courtyard of his house have been made a witness in this case nor has their statements been recorded. In paragraph 5 of his cross examination itself Complainant Baburamfurther deposed that he himself had gone to the Appellant and told him that he had brought money. At that time the Appellant had not demanded money from this witness. This witness further deposed that he took the Appellant to a room and there he gave him the money. At that time also the Appellant had made any demand from this witness nothing has been stated by this witness in this regard in his Court statement. On a minute examination of the above evidence it is clear that with regard to the initial demand there are material contradictions in the statements of Complainant Baburamand panch witnesses Ajay Awasthiand R.P. Sharmaat the time of trap also there are material contradictions in the statements of Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwari panch witnesses R.P. Sharma and Ajay Awasthi and Complainant Baburamhad entered the house of the Appellant. At that time inside the house the Appellant himself made the demand of bribe from the Complainant Complainant Baburamhas not stated anything in this regard in his Court statement. From the statements of Complainant Baburamit is clear that at the time of trap along with the Appellant 4 5 persons were also sitting along with the Appellant but despite that the prosecution has not made any of those persons a witness in this case nor has recorded their statements. It is suspicious that the Appellant would have demanded and accepted bribe money in presence of those persons. Therefore in my considered view the prosecution has not been able to prove its case of demand and acceptance of bribe money against the Appellant. The Appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Trial Court is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. (Arvind Singh Chandel JUDGE 