Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Om Prakash Tiwari on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 1151 of 2008
Appellant :- State of U.P.
Respondent :- Om Prakash Tiwari
Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri P.K. Bharadwaj, 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 26.7.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Gorakhpur in Special Trail No.19 of 1996, arising out of Crime No.146 of 1992, whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The accused-respondent was posted as Sanitary Inspector. On 15.6.1992, the complainant made a complaint that he was running a Kirana Shop at Bus Station, Maharajganj and on 9.6.1992, Area Sanitary Inspector, the accused-respondent had checked his shop and had taken sample of Pegion pee . The accused-respondent had demanded Rs.2,000/- and promised that if he would be paid Rs.2,000/- his sample would be changed. On 15.6.1992, the date was fixed for acceptance of money by the accused-respondent. The complainant had given an application to Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, on which a trap team was constituted which allegedly apprehended the accused-respondent while demanding and accepting Rs.2,000/- as bribe amount .
4. Learned trial court vide impugned judgement and order had acquitted the accused-respondent. The trial court held that the accused-respondent was not in a position to help the complainant as the sample had already been sent to Public Analyst and, secondly the decoy had prior enmity and reason to falsely implicate the accused-respondent. No reasonable person would have accepted the bribe amount from a person, who was inimical to the accused-respondent.
5. From the testimony of the independent witnesses and the other evidence, the trial court found that the accused-respondent had not accepted the bribe amount and the same was forcibly thrusted upon him. The trial court also found that the sanction in the present case was granted by the person who was not competent to grant sanction.
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 appeal against the order of acquittal, this Court does not see 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/-
