Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 21 November, 2022
Bench: Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Judgment reserved on 15.11.2022
Judgment delivered on 21.11.2022
Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4023 of 2003
Revisionist :- Ramesh Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- J.P.S. Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sanjay Sharma
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present revision has been filed against the Judgement and order of acquittal dated 16.09.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, District Bijnor, in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2002 and Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2002 whereby the accused opposite parties have been acquitted for the offence under Sections 7/13 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that an application was moved on 13.06.2001 by the complainant namely, Ramesh Singh before the District Magistrate, Bijnor, alleging therein that he is engaged in the business of transport and he was given the tender of U.P. Forest Department, Najibabad, District Bijnor in the year 1999-2000 for transportation of the goods from one place to another as specified in the tender. The complainant Ramesh Singh was paid for such transportation from time to time but total amount of Rs. 90,000/- was due to be paid to him by the Forest Department and when he approached the concerned authorities for payment, illegal gratification was demanded by the accused to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and the accused-opposite party no.2 demanded Rs. 1000/- The complainant Ramesh Singh did not want to give such illegal gratification as such he moved an application before the District Magistrate, Bijnor, who directed the concerned authorities to do the needful and thus a trap was organised pursuant to the application of the complainant. Thereafter, trap team was constituted and after completion of the necessary formalities, the complainant along with the trap team went to the office of the accused-opposite parties at Najibabad, District Bijnor and gave them illegal gratification as demanded by them, and the accused-opposite parties were caught red handed by the trap team. Thereafter, sanction was obtained, investigation was made, in which charge sheet was submitted and the accused-opposite parties were put to trial in which, they were acquitted vide order dated 16.09.2003 which order is impugned in the present revision.
4. The main grounds in the revision are that finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and erroneous in law and on facts both. The learned Sessions Judge has committed material illegality in acquitting the accused-respondent nos. 2 and 3 without considering the material evidence on record as such the impugned order is illegal. The learned Sessions Judge has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the prosecution case when there was no contradiction on any material point in the statement of witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge has not recorded any finding that either there are material contradiction on any material point and witnesses are un-reliable. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused-respondent nos. 2 and 3. Learned Sessions Judge has recorded finding that the payment of Rs. 20558.10 have been made to the revisionist on 12.6.2001, hence, the proceeding of trial against accused-respondent nos. 2 and 3 dated 13.6.2001 became suspicious whereas there is specific statement of revisionist regarding balance unpaid amount of Rs. 90,000/- and same is not paid to the revisionist as such the finding recorded by the learned Session Judge is illegal and arbitrary. Learned Sessions Judge has wrongly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and further has failed to record any specific finding regarding unpaid amount of Rs. 90,000/-.
5. Learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 contended that State has also preferred a Government Appeal No. 194 of 2004 against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The aforesaid government appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 27.2.2014 and leave to appeal has been refused. It is further contended that the appellate court has observed that findings recorded in the acquittal order are neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence and material on record and there is no compelling or substantial circumstances to interfere in the appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the court. Learned counsel further contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment.
6. Learned A.G.A. admitted that government appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 27.2.2014.
7. The grounds of this revision have already been considered in the government appeal no. 194 of 2004. Scope of Revision is limited in comparison to appeal. In appeal this court after appreciation of all material on record did not find sufficient ground to make any interference in the impugned judgment. So there is no sufficient ground of interference by this court in a Revisional proceeding.
8. The criminal revision is hereby dismissed.
Order Date:- 21.11.2022
Masarrat
