The trial court had convicted the respondent
herein under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The judgment of the trial court was set
aside by the High Court and the respondent acquitted by
judgment dated 15.07.2002. The State has come in
appeal before us after the grant of special leave.
We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
We find that there were three material witnesses
in the present case. P.W. 1 – the complainant, P.W. 2 –
the trap witness and P.W. 5 – the shadow witness.
Concededly, P.W. 1 – the complainant did not support the
prosecution story and disowned the statements attributed
to him in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also in the complaint. P.W. 2 –
the shadow witness testified that he was not sitting in
the verandah outside the room where the money had been
passed on and was not in a position to hear the
conversation that took place inside the room. P.W. 3 –
the draftsman who had drawn the site plan was even more
categoric that if P.W. 2 was sitting in the verandah
which did not have a connecting door with the room where
the respondent accused was sitting, it would not have
been possible to hear the conversation that was going on
in the room. We are, therefore, left only with the
statement of P.W. 5. His statement also is ambivalent
on material particulars and as he was a shadow witness
he was standing a long distance away from the room where
the bribe had been handed over. He was, therefore, not
in a position to see as to what had transpired.
Moreover, the High Court has on an appreciation of the
evidence recorded a finding of acquittal. We would be
hesitant to interfere with this finding.
The appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.