1 2025:CGHC:56314 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 695 of 2019 1 - Deepak Kumar Yadav S/o Mukundram Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Ghughisdih, Post Office Khopali, Police Station Utai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Arun Kumar Saha S/o Late Ramchandra Saha Aged About 56 Years R/o Labour Colony Qtr. No. 37 Ward No. 17 Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Dilip Kumar Katjhori S/o Late Pusauram Katjhori Aged About 48 Years R/o Mohlai Road, Near Bijli Office Panchsheel Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-A.C.B. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title, as taken from CIS) For Appellant : Mr. Shantam Awasthi, Advocate For State/Respondent No.3 : Mrs. Prabha Sharma, Panel Lawyer. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 19/11/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 09.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (henceforth referred to RUKHSAR BANO Digitally signed by RUKHSAR BANO Date: 2025.11.21 17:47:41 +0530 2 as ‘Special Court’) in Special Criminal Case No.04/2018, whereby the respondent No.1 & 2 / accused persons have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 1988”). 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant / complainant was posted as an Office Assistant in the Ayurvedic Hospital, Batrel, District Durg (CG). His probation period was completed on 31.05.2016, despite that, he was not being regularized. For his regularization, respondent No.1 -Arun Kumar Saha, who was posted as Assistant Grade -II, allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- through respondent No.2 - Dilip Kumar Katjhori, who was posted as a Peon in aforesaid office. On being complaint made by the appellant /complainant to the Anti - Corruption Bureau, Raipur (for short ‘ACB’) on 31.08.2017, a trap was conducted on 26.09.2017, and both the respondents were caught by the ACB, as on aforesaid date under the instructions of respondent No.1, the appellant kept Rs.2,000/- in the drawer of table of respondent No.1. After completion of necessary procedure, a charge sheet under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13 (2) of the Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the IPC was filed against the respondents No.1 & 2. 4. Learned Special Court framed charges under Section 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act, 1988 against respondents No.1 & 2, who abjured their guilt and claimed trial. 5. So as to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 60 documents. Statements of the respondents No.1 & 2 /accused persons were recorded under Section 3 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution claiming themselves to be innocent and falsely implicated. Respondents No.1 & 2 have also examined 3 witnesses in their defence. 6. Learned Special Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted respondents No.1 & 2 of all the charges on the ground that the complainant had already been regularized in service prior to the alleged date of demand of bribe by the accused persons, and the prosecution has also failed to prove that the drawer of the table, in which alleged amount of bribe of Rs.2,000/- was kept, belonged to respondent No.1. Being aggrieved, the complainant has filed the present acquittal appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that though the appellant had been regularized prior to the date of the alleged demand of bribe by the respondents / accused persons, but this fact was not within the knowledge of respondents. Therefore, on demand of a bribe of Rs.5,000/- by respondent No.1, the appellant paid first installment of Rs.2,500/-, and the second installment of Rs.2,000/- was paid by him on the date of trap, i.e., on 26.09.2017. He further submitted that though on being dipped hands of both the respondents No.1 & 2 /accused, colour of the water did not change into pink colour, as they had not held the bribe money, rather on the instruction of respondent No.1, complainant put bribe money of Rs.2,000/- in the drawer of his table. He next submitted that demand and acceptance of bribe money have been proved, despite that, the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted, hence, he prays that this appeal may be 4 allowed and the respondents No.1 & 2 /accused persons be convicted for the charges levelled against them. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the State has not filed appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. In the case of the bribe, the prosecution is obliged to prove demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused persons. In instant case, though it is alleged that the said bribe money was demanded by the respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 for regularization of service of appellant / complainant and that demand was made on 31.08.2017, whereas the appellant / complainant Deepak Kumar Yadav, who has been examined as (PW-1), himself has admitted in para 43 of his cross-examination that, he was regularized in service vide order dated 26.08.2017 passed by the District Ayurvedic Officer, Durg, whereas alleged demand of bribe was made from him on 31.08.2017, 4 days prior to which he had already been regularized and he has also accepted that the order was received by him by post, therefore, there was no cause to demand bribe for regularization of complainant. 11. 11. Alleged bribe money of Rs.2,000/- was not recovered from exclusive possession of none of the respondents /accused persons, rather, it was said to be recovered from the drawer of the table, but prosecution has failed to prove that, that table was in exclusive possession of respondent No.1. It has also not been conclusively proved that alleged bribe amount was kept in drawer under the instruction of respondent 5 No.1. It is also apparent from record that on being dipped hands of both the respondents, the colour of water did not change, as they had not held alleged bribed amount, to which, Phenolphthalein powder was applied. 12. On perusal of evidence available on record and judgment passed by learned Special Court, it is found that all the aspects have been considered by the trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record and well reasoned order has been passed, which does not call for any interference of this Court, therefore, no ground of admission of instant acquittal appeal is found, hence the appeal is dismissed at motion stage. No order as to cost(s). 13. Record of the Court below be returned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Rukhsar