High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the State's acquittal appeal. The Court held that prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt. Relied on B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P. regarding presumption under Section 20.
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondent upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 375 of 2010
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant/State :Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Dy. G.A. For Respondent :None
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board
03.08.2023
2
posted as senior clerk in District Hospital Ambikapur and office of Health Officer, demanded a sum of Rs.100/- as bribe from the complainant for preparing his service roll and received the same. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent and charges were framed as mentioned above.
3
learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of (P.W.-2) Dr. Keshwar Prasad, (P.W.-4) Dr. B.R. Sharma, (P.W.-6) D.R. Khute, (P.W.-7) P. Murli Mohan, (P.W.-9) Dr. R.P. Sharma and documents exhibited by the prosecution. Therefore, the judgment passed by the learned trial judge is liable to be set aside.
“9.…...Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent.”
4
acquittal on the basis of material on record and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of acquittal. Even otherwise, as regards appeal against the judgment of acquittal, it is a settled position of law that if on the basis of material on record two views can be drawn, then the preference has to be given to the one favouring the accused.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) Judge
Ruchi
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the acquittal of the respondent is sustainable as the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the trial Court erred in law by appreciating evidence from cross-examination alone and ignoring substantial prosecution evidence.
Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be invoked given the absence of proof of demand.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P.Referred¶23
(2014) 13 SCC 55 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station In-charge Ambikapur
Vishwanath Soni
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
