State Of U.P. vs Constable Anil Kumar Singh And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4188 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 98 of 2021
 

 
Appellant :- State of U.P.
 
Respondent :- Constable Anil Kumar Singh And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.A.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Pulak Ganguly,Sugendra Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. Heard and perused the entire file.

2. This application under Section 387(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ?CrPC?) has been moved on behalf of the appellant - Government for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment & order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Act), Court No. 4, Varanasi in Special Sessions Trial No.18 of 2013, arising out of FIR/Crime No.0146 of 2013, under Section 7/13(1)d read with 13(2) Prevention of Anti-Corruption Act, 1988, lodged at Police Station Rohaniya, District Varanasi.

3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Satyarth Anirudh Pankaj, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Varanasi gave a complaint (Exhibit Ka-1) stating that on 20.03.2013, at around 2.45 a.m., when he was on routine petrolling of area, he found activity of police constable, Anil Kumar Singh, who was posted at Police Station Rohaniya, suspicious; when his activities were watched closely and, he was found that the said police constable, who was made accused and respondent herein, was collecting money from the vehicles passing through the said road where he was posted; he was keeping the money in his pocket; the complainant, being an IPS Officer, reached near the respondent and, found that he had received a note of Rs.50 from a truck driver and kept the same in his pocket. The said police constable, accsued-respondent was enquired about it, but as the complainant was in plain clothes, the accused-respondent refused to divulge anything; thereafter, the complainant introduced himself and when a search of the accused-respondent was made, total Rs. 270 was recovered from his pocket, which included notes of Rs.500/-. On the basis of this complaint, the FIR came to be registered under Sections 7/13 (1) read with Section 13(2) PC Act came to be registered.

4. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

5. Charges were framed on 30.06.2014 for offence under Sections 7/13(1)d read with Section 13(2) PC Act which the accused denied and claimed trial.

6. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined as many as 8 witnesses, however, in defence the accused-respondent did not lead any evidence after his statement got recorded under Section 313 CrPC.

7. During the course of trial, even the complainant, who was examined as PW-1, did not support the prosecution case and no such amount was recovered from possession of the accused-respondent nor any search was made from co-accused-respondent, Babalu Singh. Trial Court's finding that most of the prosecution witnesses have not support the prosecuton case has acquitted the accused - respondents of charges levelled against them him under Sections 13(1)d read with Section 13(2) PC Act.

8. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order and find that the view taken by the learned trial Court is plausible one. The learned trial Court has not committed any error of law or evidence and, therefore, this Court does not find it a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted. Hence, the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby rejected.

.

Memo

Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, the memo of appeal is also dismissed.

[D.K.SINGH, J.]

Order Date :- 9.2.2023

MVS/-