1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred against the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair dated 18th October, 2023 whereby the Trial Court acquitted the respondent herein as he was found not guilty for charges levelled under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. It was the prosecution case before the Trial Court that the complainant being an LIC agent submitted a letter of complaint dated 17th July, 2014 to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Unit, Port Blair against the respondent alleging demand of bribe in connection with a mutation proceeding. On the basis of such complaint, formal FIR was drawn up being FIR No. 04 of 2014 dated 17th July, 2014 under Sections 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Investigation had been initiated in course of which the respondent herein had been trapped and caught red handed for taking bribe of Rs. 3,000/- being 3 government currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- denomination each. Three, 1000/- rupees currency notes have been recovered from the present respondent.

3. After investigation, charges were framed under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d). Charges were read over and explained to the respondent but the respondent pleaded not guilty. In course of trial, 8 witnesses were examined. Documentary as well as materials evidences were adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge, on appreciating the evidence, found that the prosecution failed to bring home the charges levelled against the respondent and accordingly acquitted him in terms of the impugned judgment.

4. The State preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment.

5. Mr. Sumit Kr. Karmakar, learned Counsel for the State argued that the Trail Court failed to take notice and failed to consider the incrementing elements against the respondent available in record. He further submitted that although the defacto complainant (PW-1) turned hostile. The Trial Court should appreciate testimony of other witnesses as well as documentary and materials evidences which could have weighed heavily against the respondent.

6. Per contra, Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that some stray incrementing elements failed to bring home the charges levelled against the respondent. Even though, some incrementing elements are there, the same are far away to establish the alleged facts.

7. I have heard rival submissions of the parties.

8. PW-1 being the defacto complainant turned hostile. In his evidence, he did not clearly state that the respondent demanded bribe from the defacto complainant, although he verified his signatures in various exhibits and although the defacto complainant identified the respondent on dock. He stated in his cross-examination that he made a statement to the police that he proposed to pay the respondent of Rs. 3,000/-. He was not present when the respondent was apprehended and denied the entire trapped proceeding and his presence therein. It is in his evidence that he was a LIC agent connected to the respondent and rupees 3,000/- was paid to the respondent not in connection with the mutation proceeding but in connection with something else.

9. PW-2, in course of examination-in-chief made statement, how the respondent was trapped with 3 currency notes in presence of the defacto complainant. He also identified the materials exhibits. However, he could not say, in course of cross-examination, whether the particular currency notes had been recovered from the respondent. He could not say whether currency notes were kept in the pocket of the respondent. Cross-examination, contradicted his statements made on examination-in-chief.

10. PW-3 was stated to be present at the time of trapped proceeding. In examination-in-chief, he could not state wherefrom the currency notes were procured. Again he identified the three, 1,000/- rupees currency notes and identified signatures of pre and post trapped memorandum. He again stated, in course of cross-examination, that he could not say whether the note was recovered from the respondent. He did not see the respondent demanding or accepting the currency notes from the complainant. His evidence is also contradictory.

11. Pw-4 was an Inspector of Police who was a member of the raiding team. In examination-in-chief he stated that the tainted currency notes had been handed over by the defacto complainant (PW-1) to the respondent and these were recovered from the later. Then, in course of cross-examination he contradicted himself to state that he did not see the respondent demanding or accepting money, he did not state the Investigating Officer wherefrom the tainted currency notes had been recovered. Testimony of PW-5 also suffered from the same contradictions. He was a member of raiding team. He, whatever might have been stated in course of examination-in-chief contradicted his statements to state that he did not see the respondent demanding or accepting the tainted currency notes.

12. PW-8 being the Investigating Officer stated that 2 independent witnesses were called in the trapped proceeding but in course of cross-examination he stated that he could not collect any independent witnesses at the time of raid or seizure.

13. Genesis of the complaint is the written complaint made by the defacto complainant alleging demand of bribe by the respondent. He denied payment of bribe to the respondent; his evidence is full of contradiction and denial. His evidence cannot be relied upon. Similarly other eye witnesses namely PW-2 and PW-3 did not state that the respondent demanded or accepted bribe. There evidences are also contradicted. Testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 can be discarded to come to the conclusion of taking bribe demanding by the respondent. PW-4 and PW-5 also stated that they did not see the respondent demanding or accepting the currency notes.

14. Testimony of PW-8 being a Police witness was not corroborated by the other witness though the PW-8 stated that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 present and in their presence currency notes had been handed over to the respondent.

15. On appreciation of oral testimony nothing is found from which definite positive conclusion can be drawn in favour of the charges levelled against the respondent. Contradictory evidences and mutually destructive statement of witnesses can never be the basis of the conviction when no clear firm opinion of the guilt of an accused can be found. The Trial Court properly appreciated the evidence and rightly came to the conclusion that charges had not been proved against the respondent.

16. For reasons stated above, this Court concur with the judgment passed by the Trial Court and is of the opinion that impugned judgment dated 18th October, 2023 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair demand no interference.

17. Accordingly, instant appeal has been dismissed.

18. Let the Trial Court records be transmitted forthwith.

19. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.