Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Anwar Ahmad on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 4227 of 2005
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Anwar Ahmad
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Srivastava,Amit Mishra
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri J.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for the appellant-State. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the accused-respondent.
2. The present Government Appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgement and order dated 28.5.2005 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Bareilly in Special Case No.6 of 2001, arising out of Crime No.635 of 2000, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(D)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The prosecution case is that a complaint regarding demand of illegal gratification was made to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Bareilly on 15.8.2000 by the complainant, Abid Umar Khan alleging that his father Masood Umar Khan, who was the Principal of Public Junior High School, Rampur, died on 5.4.1980 in harness. This Court vide order dated 25.5.1997 passed in Writ Petition No.17812 of 1997 directed the Additional Director Education, Basic Shiksha Adhikari and the Accounts Officer, Basik Shiksha Board, Rampur to give Rs.425/- per month as family pension to Smt. Noor Saba, mother of the complainant, who was wholly dependant on his father.
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Divisional Assistant Education Director (Basic), 12th Division, Moradabad vide his letter dated 30.11.1999 gave direction to the Accounts Officer, Basic Shiksha Parishad, Rampur that in view of the order dated 26.5.1997 passed by the High Court, the family pension of Smt. Noor Saba required to be fixed. Thus, in the month of December, 1999, the family pension of Smt. Noor Saba was fixed at Rs.425/- per month. The family pension was revised in view of the recommendation of the Pay Commission and it became Rs.1325/- per month. As a result of revision in family pension in pursuance to the implementation of the recommendation of the Pay Commission, some arrears were required to be paid to Smt. Noor Saba. She gave several applications to various authorities. However, nothing was done. Mother of the complainant had met several officers for payment of arrears of family pension. The accused-respondent had allegedly demanded Rs.18,000/- for payment of arrears of family pension to Smt. Noor Saba. The complainant, however, made it clear that she was not in a position to give more than Rs.1500/- as bribe for making payment of arrears of family pension to her. The complainant, thereafter, informed about the demand of bribe by the accused-responden to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Establishment, Barilly, on which a trap team was constituted, which apprehended the accused-respondent while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1500/-.
5. The learned trial court after analysing the evidence, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Two witnesses of fact were declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case. The learned trial court also came to the conclusion on the basis of evidence lead by the prosecution that the accused-respondent had not demanded any bribe and no bribe had been given to the accused-respondent and no currency notes were recovered from his possession.
6. I have perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial court and I do not find that the judgment and order is either perverse or against the evidence or law or the view taken by the trial court is impossible one.
7. Considering the limited scope of the appeal against the order of acquittal, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
8. In view thereof, I find no ground to grant leave to appeal.
9 Accordingly, leave to appeal is rejected. Resultantly, appeal is also dismissed.
Order Date :- 14.2.2023
Rao/-
