1 2025:CGHC:23111 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 868 of 2018 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The State Economic Offence Investigation Bureau, Raipur, Branch Jagdalpur , District Bastar, Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Avdhesh Pandey S/o Onkarnath Pandey Aged About 40 Years Terminated Vice Principal , R/o House No. M I G-1/211, Borsi Colony, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Government Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 11 .06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/State as well as Mr. Manish Kumar Sahu, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent on I.A. No.01/2018, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 128 days in filing the instant appeal. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No.01/2018 i.e. AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the same is allowed and delay is condoned. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 3. The petitioner/State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.07.2017 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Corruption Special Case No. 03/2013, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent from the charge punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.04.2013, the complainant, Rainuram Hidko, lodged a written complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jagdalpur. As the Hostel Superintendent at Aklavya Adarsh Avasiya Chhatravas, Lamkanhar, he alleged that Vice Principal Avdhesh Pandey was demanding a bribe of Rs. 5,000 every month for signing cheques. According to the rules, each student receives a scholarship of Rs.1,050/- alongwith a nutrition meal. Bills for these expenses are prepared and submitted to the Vice Principal, who then issues cheques jointly in the name of the Hostel Superintendent and the President of the Students' Council. These cheques are subsequently paid to the shopkeeper. The complainant stated that when Avdhesh Pandey demanded a 3 bribe, he filed the complaint. The Police prepared a Panchnama and provided the complainant with a tape recorder and a blank cassette. On 22.04.2013, the complainant handed over the tape recorder to the Police after recording the accused's demand for a bribe. The police registered the offense and initiated an investigation, constituting a trap team. Following the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the police caught the accused red-handed, and the discussion during the bribe was also recorded. After completion of the investigation, Police filed the charge-sheet before the trial Court. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and after appreciating the evidence the trial Court die not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent and, therefore, acquitted him from the charges levelled against him. Hence, the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused particularly in the circumstances under which, the accused failed to rebut the charges leveled against him. He further submits that the scope of interference with the order of acquittal is very much limited but on the other hand the appellate Court is vested with wide powers of re-appreciation of the evidence in the matter. It is the settled position of law that, if reappraisal of the evidence goes to show that the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court is unjust and perverse then the appellate Court is empowered to set-aside the same. He also submits that the prosecution has been able to 4 prove the case against the respondent which ought to have been considered by the trial Court and the respondent should have been held guilty for the offences charged, hence the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/State and submits that the learned trial Court after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly acquitted the respondent in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and gone through the records appended with it. 8. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent observing that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, while working as the Vice Principal at Eklavya Adarsh Awasiya Balk Chhatravas, Lamkanhar, under the jurisdiction of Antagadh Police Station, District North Bastar Kanker, abused his position as a public servant and demanded Rs.10,000/- as a bribe from the complainant, Rainuram Hidko, the hostel superintendent, for signing bills and cheques related to scholarships and nutritional meals. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted Rs.5,000/- as a bribe from the complainant and was found in possession of the said amount during the trap proceedings. Given the circumstances, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charges. Therefore, the trial 5 Court has acquitted the respondent from the offenses alleged against him. 9. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the respondent/accused from the aforesaid offences, I do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 10. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- "8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all." 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, is rejected. Consequently, the acquittal appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Akhil