Dismissed

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ajay Singh Gaur

Chhattisgarh HC10 Aug 2010CRMP/563/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court held that the acquittal was justified as the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The application was also dismissed due to inordinate delay without condonation.

What did the court decide?

Application for leave to appeal rejected and application dismissed on the ground of delay and lack of merit.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Ajay Singh Gaur — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

SSSSSSSSiSsSsiSSSSS^SSwZSSSSS^^sSasisiisiatSiSSsssS!^^
s&»'^aK-nkl;-iifc:niti?'."^!C;;^r;flK?i:B?>:'r.
'S-sS^Ss^.8®Bi!iisB
^ sssssa
as
^^;^?^ i3SSK
^^i^^^i'SS'S'^^^'sSS1^^1^^^^. Wl^ ana
^^^S^^^^^^^^^^^
sss aas «®

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR (Hon.Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Cri.lVI-P.No. 563 of 2010

APPLICANT

StateofMP.

VERSUS

RESPONDENT

State of Madhya Pradesh

¶8

Shri Pankaj Shrivastava PL for the applicant/State. None for the respondent/accused

¶9

APPLICATION FOR GRANT OFJ-EAVE^TO APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378 (3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(10.08.2010)

¶12

This petition is directed against the judgment and order datec 24.7.1996 passed by Special Judge, Durg, in Special Case No. 1/1995 acquitting the respondent/accused of the charges under Section 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) ofthe Prevention ofCorruption Act.

¶13

Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant time the respondent/accused herein was working as Civil Engineer in Smriti Grah Nirman Sanstha Maryadit, Bhilai. It is alleged that the respondent/accused had demanded Rs. 3,500 from the complainant wha was the contractor and had done the work of digging of drains.Awritteh complaint (Ex. P-1) was made by the complainant on 2.7.1991 and base^ on that pre trap Panchnama Ex. P-3 Was prepared, trap party was constituted and the trap was laid on that very day. The trap Panchnamd (Ex. P-4) was prepared and the amount was recovered from the dickey of the scooter belonging to the respondent/accused. After obtaining sanction on 1.10.1994 the challan was filed under Section 7, 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶14

So as to hold the accused/respondent guilty, prosecution^{ha^} examined 03 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charge levelled against hin1 and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

¶15

~s"s.
:»?.e.-(!>' "^—.....a ^
.%
'^'^^'.'v^^ '.^

¶16

Counsel for the applicant/State submits that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, the Court below ought to have convicted the respondent/accused for the offence mentioned above buf ignoring the same and thereby awarding acquittal to the respondent, it has fallen in a grave legal error. He submits that the judgment of the Court below acquitting the respondent/accused is not proper and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. He submits that even though the complainant has notsupported the ease of he prosecution and has been declared hostile, the Court below ought to have seen the otheii material available on reeord to ensure the conviction of respondenVaccused. |

¶17

Heard counsel for the applicant/state and perused the material available on record.

¶18

The complainant Lakhan Lal Tiwari (PW-3) has stated in hi^ statement that no demand was made by the respondent/accused and it was made by one R.N.Singh who was the prescribed officer to pass the said bill. He has stated that the complaint was made at the behest of Prem Singh (PW-1) - the then Dy. Superintendent of Police. Thd complainant has admitted that though the bribe amount was given to the accused/respondent, after counting the same he had returned it to him and that he is not aware as to how such amount was recovered from the dickey of the scooter belonging to the respondent/accused. Ravi Shankair Mishra (PW-2) is the Panch witness who has stated that he had not heard any conversation between the parties and not even seen the complainant giving money to the respondent/accused. Thus the record shows that the demand and acceptance of bribe amount oh the part of fh^ respondent/accused has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and this being the position the findings recorded by the Court below acquitting the respondent/accused appear to be just and ' . proper.

¶19

' .

¶20

Thus after going through the material available on record and being very much conscious of the existing^legal position^{thatinanappeal} against acquittal if two views are possible on the basis of evidence led by

¶21

the prosecution and the trial Court taking one view favoured the accusedj this Court is of the considered opinion that reversion of the findings of acquittal by the appellate Court taking the other possible view intcj consideration, is not permissible in law and therefore the judgmerif impugned acquitting respondent/accused ofthe charges under Section 7; 13 (1) (d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is just and proper and does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal being without substance is liableto be rejected. It is accordingly rejected and leave to appeal as prayed for is refused. Moreover, as there is an inordinate delay of 422 days in filing this application for grant of leave to appeal and no application for condonation of the same has been filed in spite of the direction of thi^ Court. Thus the application is dismissed on the ground of delay as well.

¶22

Sd/Pritinker Diwakar Judge

¶23

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ajay Singh Gaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Ajay Singh Gaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amar Lal Kesri Vs the State of M.P.

Ananta Charya Vs Venkatesh Garodiya

Yashwant Sahu Vs J.R. Dhruv Jittu Ram Dhruv

Mukesh Vs the State of M.P.

Khem Singh Dehari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishnapal Singh Vs the State of M.P.