Chattisgarh High Court
Rikhi Ram Paraste vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 February, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:6057
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on : 03-12-2024
Judgment delivered on : 03-02-2025
CRA No. 782 of 2005
Rikhi Ram Paraste, S/o Shri Punawalal Paraste, Aged About 54 Years
Sub Divisional Officer (Telephone Exchange) Up Mandal Office
Tikrapara, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh through Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt
Office, Bhopal, Ikai, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG)
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate.
For Respondent : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J
C A V Judgment
Challenge in the present appeal is to the legality and validity of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.9.2005 passed
by the Special Judge and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in
Special Criminal Case No. 10/2002 whereby the accused/appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 7 of Prevention of RI for one year, pay a fine of
Corruption Act, 1988. Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for one month.
Under Section 13(1)(d) read with RI for two years, pay a fine of
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Rs.1000/- and in default thereof to
Corruption Act, 1988. suffer additional RI for two
months.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Dr. Shankar
Pushpkar opened a clinic at Nehru Nagar, Raipur and for the purpose
of getting telephone connection in his clinic, on 12.4.2001 he deposited
the requisite fee of Rs.2000/- with the Telephone Department but no
such connection was provided to him. Hence the complainant sent his
assistant Purushottam Manikpuri to Telephone Exchange, Tikrapara for
enquiring about the matter where he met the accused/appellant who
was working as Sub Divisional Officer (Telephone) and he demanded
Rs.400/- for providing telephone connection. On 1.5.2001 when the
complainant went to the office of the accused, he again demanded
Rs.400/- for telephone connection. Since the complainant did not want
to give bribe to the accused and wanted to get him caught red handed,
on 2.5.2001 he wrote a complaint regarding demand of bribe by the
accused to Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment,
Raipur who authorized Shri NS Rajput, Dy.SP, Special Police
Establishment to enquire into the matter. For verification of the
complaint, the complainant was given a micro tape recorder with empty
cassette for recording the conversation regarding demand of bribe by
the accused. On 3.5.2001 the complainant again submitted an
application to the SP, Special Police Establishment along with tape
recording of conversation with the accused regarding demand of bribe.
03. Dy. Superintendent of Police Shri NS Rajput called the panch
witnesses namely Shri Avinash Sharma and Dr. Vimal Kumar Kanungo,
Assistant Professors of Govt. Science College, Raipur, to Lokayukt
Office, Raipur on 3.5.2001, they were introduced to the complainant
who had come with bribe amount of Rs.300/- and also informed about
the demand of bribe by the accused. After recording numbers of three
currency notes of 100 denomination produced by the complainant in
the Preliminary Panchanama (Ex.P/8) and applying phenolphthalein
powder on the said notes, it were kept in the left pocket of
complainant's shirt with an instruction to give this amount on being
demanded by the accused in his hand only and before and after giving
this amount to him and, he should not shake hand with him and that
thereafter he is to give signal to the trap party by scratching his head.
The complainant and the witnesses were made aware of the trap
proceedings.
04. After reaching the office of the accused, the complainant gave
the tainted notes of Rs.300/- to the accused and after coming out from
the office, gave signal to the trap party whereupon the trap party
entered the office and Constable Shyam Sunder caught hold of left
wrist of the accused and Rakesh Bhatt, Police Inspector, caught hold of
his right wrist. The bribe amount was seized at the instance of the
accused from his table which was kept under a diary and on numbers
of the currency notes being tallied, it were found to be the same tainted
notes described in the preliminary panchanama. After completing the
usual formalities, charge sheet under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act was filed against the
accused.
05. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the
accused, which were denied by him and he prayed for trial. The
prosecution in order to prove its case examined 14 witnesses.
Statement of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded
wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false
implication. In his defence, he examined two witnesses.
06. After hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material
placed on record, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment
convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in para 1 of this
judgment.
07. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material
available on record. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated
the oral and documentary evidence on record. PW-2 Kanungo admitted
that when hands of the appellant were dipped in the sodium carbonate
solution, its colour did not change and this fact is also proved by the
defence witnesses but the learned trial Court ignored this important
aspect. PW-13 Purushottam Manikpur, who is subordinate of the
complainant, also did not support the prosecution case and was
declared hostile. The complainant has deposed that as demanded by
the appellant, he gave four tainted currency notes of 100 denomination
to him whereas only Rs.300/- was seized from the table of the
appellant and remaining 100 rupee note was not seized. This itself
creates doubt as to the authenticity of demand and acceptance. There
are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the
complainant. Therefore, in the given set of evidence, it is clear that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt
and as such, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges by
giving him benefit of doubt.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of A.
Subair Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) 6 SCC 587; P. Satyanarayana
Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhar Pradesh
and another, (2015) 10 SCC 152; C. Sukumaran Vs. State of Kerala,
(2015) 11 SCC 314; and K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana,
(2022) 4 SCC 574.
08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State
supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court
upon minute examination and appreciation of the overall evidence on
record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant by the
impugned judgment which calls for no interference by this Court.
Therefore, the present appeal being without any substance is liable to
be dismissed.
09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the appellant
was charged under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that he demanded and
accepted Rs.300/- as bribe from the complainant for providing him
telephone connection.
11. PW-1 complainant Dr. Shankar Pushpkar states that he
deposited Rs.2000/- with the telephone department for getting
telephone connection. After one week he sent his assistant
Purushottam Manikpuri to Telephone Exchange Office, Tikrapara to
enquire about the matter. However, Purushottam informed him that the
appellant is demanding Rs.400/- as bribe for telephone connection and
he has called him. When he went to the office of the appellant, he
demanded Rs.400/- bribe from him and also misbehaved with him.
Thereafter, he made a written complaint (Ex.P/1) to the Superintendent
of Police which bears his signature from A to A part. The office of
Lokayukt gave him a mini tape recorder and he recorded conversion
with the accused regarding demand of bribe. Transcription of the
conversation is Ex.P/5 and he admitted his signature from A to A part
on this document.
He states that he submitted Rs.400/- in the office of Lokayukt, its
numbers were noted and phenolphthalein power was applied on it. He
was explained the procedure of trap and was asked to again record the
conversation while giving bribe to the accused. After reaching the office
of the accused, on being demanded by the accused he gave four
tainted notes of 100 denomination to the accused. The accused took
three notes of 100 denomination and kept it under a diary on the table
and one note of 100 denomination was kept on the table itself. After
coming out of his office, he (PW-1) gave signal to the trap party, upon
which they rushed into the office, introduced themselves to the
accused and enquired about the bribe amount. Initially, the accused did
not tell them anything but after sometime disclosed to have kept it
under the diary on the table. When hands of the accused were washed
with the sodium carbonate solution, its colour turned pink. When the
tainted notes and hands of the complainant were also washed, colour
of the solution tuned pink. On numbers of the notes being tallied, it
were found to be the same tainted notes.
In cross-examination he admits that after depositing Rs.2000/-
he sent his assistant to telephone department and he admitted that by
that time work order was issued but he did not mention this fact in his
written complaint Ex.P/1 that on 23.4.2001 work order was received by
the accused. He admitted in para 13 that on 26th he came to know
through his compounder Manikpuri that telephone connection is to be
provided but the said fact was not mentioned in Ex.P/1 by mistake. He
admits that on 26th he got to know that for want of space in DP, it may
take some time for providing telephone connection. In para 18 he
admits that in his application Ex.P/1 he mentioned that the accused
demanded Rs.400/- and while giving statement to the police he stated
that he gave Rs.400/- to the accused but he returned Rs.100/- to him
saying that his work will be done for Rs.300/-. He states that Rs.100/-
was kept in the office of the accused and he cannot tell as to which
police officer picked it.
12. PW-2 Dr. Vimal Kumar Kanungo is a shadow witness and he
admitted his signature on Exs.P/5 to P/8, P/11 to P/19. In cross-
examination he admits that mini tape recorder was not given to the
complainant in his presence and that the complainant was given three
currency notes of 100 denomination only. He admits that he went with
the trap party but the complainant went into the office of the accused
alone and after about 15 minutes when the complainant gave signal to
the trap party, then he along with the trap party members went inside
the office of the accused and saw that the money was recovered from
the table of the accused which was kept under a diary. However, he
admits that when hands of the accused were washed before him with
the solution, its colour did change.
13. PW-6 Shyamsunder, Police Constable, PW-7 Virendra Sharma,
Inspector and PW-8 Shivbadan Mishra, Head Constable are members
of the trap party and they stated that they stood outside the office of the
accused and only the complainant went inside the office.
14. As per complainant, the accused demanded bribe from his
assistant Purushottam but Purushottam (PW-13) states that when he
went to Telephone Exchange, Tikrapara to enquire about the status of
complainant's application, he met one lineman who told him that it
would take about 15-20 days for providing connection. Next time when
he went to the said office, he met the accused who informed him that
after laying cable, he would get telephone connection within 10-15
days. He states that nobody demanded money for providing telephone
connection and that he did not tell Dr. Pushpkar about demand of
money for providing telephone connection. This witness was declared
hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined, however, in cross-
examination also he denied all the suggestions of the prosecution. In
cross-examination by the defence he admits that the power to connect
the telephone connection is with the head office and the ring tone is
provided by the head office and not by the office at Tikrapara. He
admits that phone was installed in the clinic of the doctor but dial tone
could be obtained from the head office only.
15. As per written complaint Ex.P/1 of PW-1 Dr. Shankar Pushpkar,
the accused demanded Rs.400/- as illegal gratification from his
Assistant Purushottam and thereafter when he himself met the
accused on 1.5.2001 the accused again demanded Rs.400/- from him
as bribe for providing telephone connection. Ex.P/5 is the transcription
of conversation of the complainant with the the accused on 2.5.2001
but in this transcription also it is written " ugha ,Dpwoyh oks Duty
jftLVj uk oks izkCye vkuh gS fQj vki dk ykbZu djrk] vc vHkh
vki us ns[kk D;k fd;k gSA dscy esa txg gh ugh FkkA ckr fd;s fQj
fudyok;s eSa ogka lsA"
16. In the matter of Rajesh Gupta Vs. State Through CBI, 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1107 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paras 12
and 20 as under:
"12. On the issue of evidentiary value and credibility of the
recording in the cases of trap, the law is well-settled in the case of
Ram Singh V. Col. Ram Singh, 1985 Supp SCC 611, wherein this
Court held that tape-recorded statement is admissible in evidence
if the voice of the speaker is identified by the maker of the record
and other persons recognizing his voice. In case, the maker is
unable to identify the voice, strict proof would be required to
determine whether or not, the said voice is of alleged speaker. The
accuracy of the tape-recorded statement must be proved by the
maker of the record by satisfactory evidence, direct or
circumstantial. The possibility of tampering with, or erasure of any
part of the tape-recorded statement must be totally excluded. The
voice of the particular speaker must be clearly audible and must
not be lost or distorted by other sounds or disturbances, otherwise,
the transcript as prepared, is inadmissible in evidence.
20. On the said issue, the judgments of this Court in B. Jayaraj
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2014)13 SCC 55 C.M. Girish Babu
vs. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779 are relevant, whereby this Court has
clearly spelt out that the recovery shall follow the proof of demand.
The presumption under Section 20 of PC Act can be drawn only
when the demand is proved and the money is voluntarily accepted,
knowing the fact that the said money has been delivered by way of
bribe. In absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and
mere possession or recovery of the currency notes is not sufficient
to constitute such offence. It is clarified that presumption under
Section 20 PC Act can be drawn only after demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification is proved beyond reasonable
doubt. In our considered opinion, the findings as recorded by the
Trial Court and the High Court, drawing presumption under Section
20 of the PC Act, are completely perverse in law. There is no
evidence to prove the demand and the acceptance. The theory of
preponderance of probabilities, as applied in this case, is not
sustainable and the finding of the High Court is liable to be set-
aside.
17. Learned trial Court found that as per transcription (Ex.P/5), the
accused demanded Rs.200-300/- but in the transcription it is written
that accused told "nks rhu lkS Hkst nks" and the complainant said that
"nks rhu lkS Bhd" and then the accused explained some technical
problem. However, on the basis of above transcription the learned trial
Court found that the accused demanded Rs.300/- and held the
demand by the accused proved. It is evident from the record that tape
recording was not played before the trial Court and no one identified
the voice of the accused. In Ex.P/1, demand of Rs.400/- is said to
have been made by the accused whereas while framing charge,
learned trial Court mentioned that the accused demanded Rs.300/- as
bribe. Further, from the statements of the complainant and the shadow
witness, only Rs.300/- was recovered from the table of the accused
which was kept under a diary. The trap witnesses admit that they do
not know as to who owned that diary. The complainant admitted in para
21 that when he reached the office of the accused, one person was
sitting there. However, that person has not been examined by the
prosecution who could have been the best independent witness
regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. The accused examined
the said person Laxman Singh as DW-1.
DW-1 Laxman Singh states that on 3.5.2001 he was sitting with
the accused and at around 3.30 to 4 pm one doctor entered the office
who was asked to sit by the accused but he did not sit and kept
something on the table after taking out from his pocket and ran away.
As soon as he ran away, he (DW-1) followed him and after coming out
he saw that the said person was talking with the Lokayukt people who
asked him whether work is done and the doctor replied that he has
kept under the diary on the table. He states that when hands of the
accused were washed with the solution and its colour did not change,
the doctor fled from there.
18. DW-2 Pappu Nishad states that before him the lineman laid wire
and installed the telephone instrument in the office of Dr. Pushpkar. He
states that the work of Tikrapara Exchange is limited to this extent only.
He further states that while he was digging pit, the doctor kicked down
two liters of kerosene oil brought by him and he informed about it to the
Sahab.
19. The complainant himself admitted that at the time of trap, one
person was sitting with the accused but the prosecution did not
examine that person and he was examined by the accused as defence
witness. It is also admitted by the trap witnesses that notes were
recovered from under the diary.
20. In the matter of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) it has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 21, 22, 23 & 25 of its
judgment as under:
"21. In State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao, (2011) 6 SCC 450 this
Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same
offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would a not
prove the charge against the accused and in absence of
any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the
accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to
be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained.
22. 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, (2014) 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) and (ii) of 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) and (ii) of 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.
23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the
gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the
charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any e
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.
25. In our estimate, to hold on the basis of the evidence on
record that the culpability of the appellant under Sections 7
and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) has been proved, would be an
inferential deduction which is impermissible in law.
Noticeably, the High Court had acquitted the appellant of
the charge under Section 7 of the Act and the State had
accepted the verdict and has not preferred any appeal
against the same. The analysis undertaken as hereinabove
qua Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act, thus, had
been to underscore the indispensability of the proof of
demand of illegal gratification."
21. In the matter of C. Sukumaran (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paras 16 & 17 of its judgment held as under:
"16. Further, none of the prosecution witnesses have
actually deposed in the case that the appellant was the
person who had demanded and accepted the bribe from
the complainant and since PW 2 has materially turned
hostile, therefore, neither the demand aspect nor can the
acceptance of the bribe money be verified from any other
witnesses of the prosecution. Further, PW I in his a
deposition before the Special Judge has also not supported
the case of the prosecution, as he had refused to
acknowledge the ownership of the tea shop, on the
premises of which the bribe money was allegedly accepted
by the appellant from the complainant. Hence, it is safe to
say that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond any
reasonable doubt that the appellant had accepted the
illegal gratification from the complainant under Section
13(1)(d) of the Act. In support of the same, the learned
counsel on behalf of the appellant has rightly placed
reliance upon the decision of this Court in B. Jayaraj v.
State of A.P. (2014) 13 SCC 55, which reads thus: (SCC p.
58, para 8)
"8.... 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) and (ii) is 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." (emphasis supplied)
17. Now, coming to the legality of the conviction of the
appellant under Section 13(2) of the Act by the High Court
in its judgment, the same cannot be allowed to sustain in
law, as the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of
illegal gratification made by the appellant from the
complainant and acceptance of the bribe money by the
appellant. Further, the phenolphthalein test cannot be said
to be a conclusive proof against the appellant, as the
colour of the solution with regard to the other samples was
pink and had remained so throughout. However, the lime
solution in which the appellant's hands were dipped in, did
not show the same pink colour. The reason assigned by the
trial court is that the colour could have faded by the lapse
of time. The said explanation of the trial court cannot be
accepted by us in view of the fact that the colour of the
other samples taken by the investigating officer after the
completion of the trap laid against the appellant had
continued to retain the pink colour. Moreover, the sample of
the shirt worn by the appellant which was produced before
the trial court did not show any colour change on the shirt's
pocket section, where the bribe money was allegedly kept
by him after the complainant had allegedly given him the
bribe money."
22. In light of above decisions, if the facts emerging in the present
case and the evidence adduced by the parties are examined, it is seen
that as per the complainant, the accused demanded illegal gratification
of Rs.400/- from his assistant Purushottam (PW-13) but PW-13 did not
support the prosecution case and states that no demand was ever
made by the accused from him. Statement of the complainant also
suffers from the vice of contradiction on the point of amount of bribe
money. According to him, the accused demanded Rs.400/- and after
that when he gave him Rs.400/-, he accepted only Rs.300/- saying that
this much would do. However, as per trap witness (PW-2) he kept three
tainted currency notes of 100 denomination in the pocket of the
complainant and stated that the said notes were recovered from under
the diary on the table of the accused.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of A. Subair (supra)
held in para 30 of its judgment as under:
"30. In a case such as this an inference of corruption may
not be fairly drawn as the alleged demand was of Rs 25
only. In our view, the High Court was not justified in drawing
the presumption under Section 20 and holding that the
offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act was proved.
Mere recovery of currency notes (Rs 20 and Rs 5)
denomination, in the facts of the present case, by itself
cannot be held to be proper or sufficient proof of the
demand and acceptance of bribe."
24. In the present case also, as per the complainant, the accused
demanded Rs.400/- and later said that Rs.300/- would do. But it is also
suggested by the defence that one employee of Telephone Exchange
went to the house of the complainant on 1.5.2001 with whom the
complainant misbehaved and also kicked down his kerosene oil.
Though the complainant denied all these allegations but the defence
witness (DW-2 Pappu Nishad) who is working in Telephone Exchange
stated that when he went to the house of the complainant for telephone
connection, the complainant misbehaved with him and also kicked
down his two liters of kerosene oil which was reported to his higher
authorities. Thus, conduct of the complainant appears to be very
suspicious and except the complainant, no witness supported the
demand of illegal gratification by the accused. It is also clear that at the
time of acceptance, one person was sitting with the accused but the
prosecution did not examine him for the reasons best known to it and
he was examined by the defence. The investigating officer PW-14 NS
Rajput states in para 15 that if the complainant states that he gave
Rs.400/- to the trap party, it is an incorrect statement.
25. PW-10 G.R. Banjare admits that before search the accused did
not make personal search of them and he denied the suggestion of the
defence that when the complainant went to the chamber of the
accused some person was sitting with the accused. Thus, statements
of the trap witnesses are also contradictory to each other. From the
very beginning the prosecution has been unable to prove what was the
amount of bribe whether 300/- or 400/-. The conversation between the
appellant and the complainant regarding demand of bribe has also not
been proved by the prosecution as per guidelines of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
26. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the
nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution and the
defence; the inconsistency and contradiction in the evidence of the
complainant and trap party witnesses, keeping in view the
aforementioned principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Being so, the impugned judgment of learned trial
Court is not legally sustainable and it is liable to be set aside.
27. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of
learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the
charges under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant is reported to be on bail,
therefore, his bail bonds shall remain in operation for a period of six
months from today in view of provisions of Section 481 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Sd/
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
Digitally
MOHD signed by
AKHTAR MOHD
KHAN AKHTAR
KHAN
Khan
