State vs Bachhu Singh (2023:Rj-Jd:24746)
2023 Latest Caselaw 5597 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:24746]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 419/2013

 State Of Rajasthan
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                       Versus
 Bachhu Singh S/o Ratan Singh B/c Jat; R/o Malla Heda, Tehsil
 Vair, District Bharatpur (Raj.) at present Patwari, Patwar
 Mandal, Jhalla Ki Chowki, Tehsil Raipur District Pali.
                                                                      ----Respondent




For Appellant(s)              :    Mr.Abhishek Purohit, PP
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. K.P. Singh



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Judgment

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON                               :::                 11/07/2023
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON                             :::              04/08/2023
BY THE COURT:-

1. This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against

judgment of acquittal dated 27.01.2012 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jodhpur,

in Criminal Case No.23/2007 whereby the accused-respondent has

been acquitted from the charges under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d)

and 13 (2) of the Prevention the Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Before an elaborate discussion of the evidence and

documents presented before the Court, it would be necessary to

recapitulate the salient facts. On 08.11.2004, complainant

Ratanlal submitted a written report to the Dy. S.P. at the ACB

Chowki, Pali alleging inter alia that he is the owner of the

agricultural land of Khasra No.1950 on National Highway No.14

near Village Jhalla Ki Chowki; prior to lodging of the report he filed

[2023:RJ-JD:24746] (2 of 5) [CRLA-419/2013]

two applications for grant of sanction to construct of residential

home and another permission for construction of Hotel and Dhaba

was also sought; necessary formalities were done and in this

regard he met one Kamruddin Usmani, the then Tehsildar, Raipur,

who suggested him to meet Bacchu Singh. Upon which Bacchu

Singh stated that upon fulfilling of demand of Rs.8,000/-, the

sanction would be granted. The complainant did not want to pay

the demanded amount therefore, he approached ACB office, Pali

and lodged the complaint. Upon verification of the complaint, trap

proceedings were initiated and a team was formed. During trap

proceedings when the team reached towards the Tehsil Officer,

Raipur; some time whereafter, the complainant Ram Lal came out

of the office and stated that Patwari Bachhu Singhhad handed

over Rs.8,000/- to Tehsildar. But when the team reached at the

spot they did not found the Tehsildar inside there. Whereafter the

hands of Bacchu Singh got washed with liquid of Sodium

Carbonate which turned pink. After completion of formalities, an

FIR got lodged at the Police Station CPS-ACB, Jaipur and

investigation commenced. After investigation, police filed challan

against the accused-Bacchu Singh for the offences under Section 7

& 13 (1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. During trial, 10 witnesses were examined and 62 documents

were exhibited. Statement of accused was recorded under Section

313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same and claimed trial. After affording

opportunity of hearing to both the parties and after appreciating

the evidence and material available on record, the learned trial

Court. Vide order dated 27.01.2012 acquitted the accused Bacchu

Singh for the offences aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

[2023:RJ-JD:24746] (3 of 5) [CRLA-419/2013]

4. Shri Abhishek Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor for the State

submitted that the order of acquittal is contrary to law and

evidence on record; the learned trial Court has disbelieved the

evidence of prosecution witnesses; the learned trial Court has

ignored the factum of guilt of accused; the learned Judge has

erred in holding that the amount received by the accused was not

a bribe amount. The learned Judge ought to have examined that

the aforesaid defence is a lame defence and the learned Judge

ought not have accepted the same; lastly, it is submitted that the

learned Judge has recorded acquittal on facts, which were not

germane and the prosecution had, in fact, proved the case to the

hilt.

5. Per contra, Mr.K.P.Singh, while taking this Court through

entire record, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove

the demand, acceptance and recovery, therefore, the learned trial

Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent. He submitted that the

prosecution has failed to prove demand of money by the accused.

He submitted that allegation for demanding money was levelled

against the then Tehsildar who has not been arrayed as accused in

this case, therefore, it is very much clear that the accused-

respondent has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further

submitted that the entire edifice of the prosecution case fall to the

ground as the three main ingredients as envisaged under the

provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were absent. He

submitted that neither the complainant nor investigating officer

could bring home the charge of demand alleged to have made by

the accused. He submitted that there is no infirmity in the

impugned judgment. He also submitted that the lower court has

[2023:RJ-JD:24746] (4 of 5) [CRLA-419/2013]

rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the

respondent of the charges levelled against him. He, therefore,

submitted that the impugned judgment may not be interfered with

and it may be confirmed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced on both sides

and also gone through the materials on record. Looking to the

charge framed against the respondent accused, the prosecution

has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. While passing the

impugned judgment, learned trial Judge has given categorical

finding that the respondent was not involved in the offence alleged

against him. It is also found that demand of illegal gratification

was raised by the then Tehsildar and not by the accused-

respondent, the then Tehsildar has not been arrayed as an

accused. On the contrary, the prosecution has failed to prove any

demand, acceptance and recovery, therefore also, the respondent

was rightly acquitted of the charges levelled against him under the

Prevention of Corruption Act. It is felt that the learned trial Judge

has rightly acquitted the appellant of the charges levelled against

him.

7. It is settled legal position that in an appeal against acquittal,

the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the Judgment or to

give fresh reasoning when the Appellate Court is in agreement

with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the

accused. The prosecution having failed to prove the three main

ingredients for bringing home the guilt. In the instant case, this

Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings

recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the accused-

respondent and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons

[2023:RJ-JD:24746] (5 of 5) [CRLA-419/2013]

aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and

proper and requires no interference by this Court at this stage.

Hence, the appeal being devoid of merit and is required to be

dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned

Judgment and order dated 27.01.2012 passed by learned Sessions

Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Jodhpur in Criminal Case

No.23/2007, acquitting the respondent-accused, is hereby

confirmed.

9. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial

Court concerned forthwith. Bail and bail bond, if any, stands

cancelled.

(FARJAND ALI),J 229-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)