1 2025:CGHC:10115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.283 of 2005 Judgment reserved on : 19.12.2024 Judgment delivered on : 28.02.2025 1 – Radheshyam, S/o Narmda Prasad Gupta, aged about 45 years, R/o New Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey C A V Judgment 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2005 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Case No.10/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:- Sr.No. Conviction Sentence 1. u/S 7 of the RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 Prevention of Corruption Act and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 2 months 2. u/S 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for 2 months Both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Laxmi Narayan Kashyap was Manager of Co-operative Society, Karra and appellant was working as Deputy Auditor in the office of the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society. It is alleged that appellant while inspecting the accounts of Co-operative Society, Karra raised some objections and had given a notice to appear on 28-7-2001 to the complainant and on 27-7-2001 complainant filed a complaint before Anti Corruption to the effect that on 25-7- 2001 appellant reached at the office of the complainant and asked him to be present on 25.07.2001 in his office and demanded an amount of Rs.500/- as illegal gratification to rectify the objections. Complainant was asked to present on the next day by police and on the next day preliminary inquest was prepared vide Ex.P/10. Thereafter a raid was conducted by the Trap team members and appellant was caught red handed and currency note was recovered from his pocket and after completing the necessary phenolphthalein test etc. and recording the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. the charge sheet 3 was filed against the appellant for committing offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In course of trial the prosecution examined 16 witnesses to bring home the charges. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record convicted the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. The prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by the accused/appellant. On the basis of evidence on record, the trial Court ought to held that the appellant has been falsely implicated because he had initiated audit objection and proceedings against the complainant and issued the notices. The evidence of complainant Laxminarayan Kashyap (PW-2) is not at all believable and ought not to have been believed by the learned trial Court. The seizure of the currency note according to the statement given by the witnesses is not at all proved in accordance with law. There is contradiction in the statement of the complainant, independent witnesses and the investigation officer. The learned trial Court ought not to have been given true legal effect to the contradiction in the present case. The learned trial Judge ought to have believed the document (Ex.P/9) received by the complainant on 25-7-2001. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 4 Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Subash Parbat Sonvani vs State of Gujrat, reported in (2002) 5 SCC 86, Rajendra Gupta vs State through CBI, reported in 2022 SCC Online 1107, Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi vs State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 489 and this Court’s order dated 01.12.2022 passed in CRA No.421 of 2013 in the matter of Santosh Sahu vs State of Chhattisgarh. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act against the appellant for demanding and receiving Rs.500/- bribe money being a public servant. 7. The complainant Laxmi Narayan (PW-2) stated that the accused demanded Rs.3000/- and Rs.2000/- on 25.07.2001, then he filed written complaint on 27.07.2001 in Lokayukt Office. The said report is Ex-P/2 and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he admitted that 5 in his written complaint, he did not get written demand of Rs.3000/- by the accused in the complaint and he as per his own convenience got written demand of Rs.500/-. In para 16 of the cross-examination, he also admitted that he went inside the office leaving 50 feet behind the inspector and shadow witnesses. 8. S. P. Veera (PW-4) stated in his examination-in-chief that on the accused being searched, only 3 notes were recovered from his pocket, whereas the complainant had told him that money exchange was done near the godown inside the office and the accused hidden the notes behind the jute bag. In para 5 he stated that two notes which were kept on the jute bag were got kept in the accused pockets by the complainant himself. The other witness M. R. Uike (PW-12) admitted his signature on Ex- P/4 to Ex-P/20. In para 8, he stated that the notes which were recovered from the pocket of the accused did not get coloured on washing. In para 10, he stated that inadvertently he stated that the notes which were recovered from the pockets of the accused did not get coloured. 9. The Investigating Officer K. S. Nagar (PW-16) stated in para 14 that demand of Rs.500/- by the accused was not got written by the complainant in the application (Ex-P/1). It is true that demand of Rs.3000/- by the accused was also not got written in the application (Ex-P/1). In para 18, he denied this suggestion that only 3 notes were recovered. In para 19, he admitted that some transcripts were not clear in the tape (Ex-P/12). 6 10. The prosecution filed tape transcript (Ex-P/12) and witnesses of this document are both shadow witnesses S. P. Veera (PW-4) and M. R. Uikey (PW-12), but PW-4 M. P. Veera stated in para 12 that he did not recognize the voice of the accused and the complainant previously and the same was not told to him and even there is no certificate as to whose voice was in the tape. PW-12 M. R. Uike admitted that what conversation took place between the accused and the complainant inside he does not know. He also admitted that he does not know the accused and the complainanty previously and on the date of incident, he saw them talking. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court held in the matter of Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs Brijmohan Ramdas Mehra, reported in LAWS (SC) 1975 48, in paragraphs 19 & 24 which reads as under:- “19. We think that the High Court was quite right in holding that the tape records of speeches were “documents”, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in evidence on satisfying the following conditions: (a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking must be duly identified by the maker of the record or by others who know it. (b) Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory evidence, direct or circumstantial had to be there so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the record. (c) The subject matter recorded had to be shown 7 to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act. These requirements were deduced by High Court from R. v. Maqsud Ali, (1965) 2 AII ER 464. 24. As regards the shorthand transcripts of the tape records, the evidence of their makers is there. It is certainly corroborative inasmuch as it only goes to confirm what the tape records contained. The tape records were the primary evidence of what was recorded. The transcripts could be used to show what the transcriber had found recorded there at the time of the transcription. This operated as a check against tampering. They had been rightly used by the High Court only as corroborative evidence.” 12. In light of the above, in the present case also, it is clear that the voice of the accused and the complainant was not identified by the witnesses. It is also not clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court tried to hear the tape recording and followed Section 45 (A) of the Evidence Act. It is also not clear from the statement of the complainant and the other witnesses that what was the exact amount of bribe money mentioned in Ex-P/2, whereas amount of Rs.500/- was mentioned by the complainant, but in the court statement, the complainant stated that the accused demanded Rs.3000 and 2000/-. As per prosecution story, Rs.500 note was given by the complainant to the accused applying phenolphthalein but as per shadow witnsses, only Rs.300 was recovered from the accused and other Rs.200 was recovered from another place, which was kept in the accused pocket by the complainant himself so the 8 whole prosecution story is very doubtful and demand and acceptance is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The complainant himself stated that as per his own convenience, he got written demand of bribe money of Rs.500/- by the accused in the application (Ex-P/2) as such the statement of the complainant is also not reliable. In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 14. The appellant is on bail. He be released forthwith if he is not required to be detained in any other offence. His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of 6 weeks. 15. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala