On examining the materials on record, the High Court came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish either the demand made by the accused or even the payment by the companyplainant and, therefore, the offence cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr. Badri Prasad appears to be a person who was known to Mithailal and according to his evidence he went to the Police Station on being requested by father of Mithailal to find out as to how the Mithailal was being detained at the Police Station.
Mithailal, the companyplainant who was examined as PW 9 did number support the prosecution case during trial and, therefore, he was permitted to be cross examined by the prosecution companynsel.
The accused happens to be a Police Officer.
270/ from one Mithailal and pursuant to the said demand, the money was paid which also was recovered from the Rest Room at the Police Station.
This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed against an order of acquittal recorded by the High Court.
The Special Judge companyvicted the accused respondent of the charge under Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, But on appeal, the High Court has set aside the companyviction and recorded an order of acquittal.
The respondent was charged under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation that he made a demand for a sum of Rs.
