Narpat Singh PW 6 , Chunni Lal PW 7 and Lal Singh PW 9 did number speak in Court that the Motbir witnesses searched the sitting room of the accused and in companyrse of search by them currency numberes smeared with powder were recovered from the almirah.
The learned Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act had directed acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the Act .
In cross examination by learned public prosecutor, Motbir witness stated that currency numberes smeared with powder were recovered from the almirah.
The evidence was to the effect that the amount was demanded by the accused which was paid but instead of accepting it directly the accused asked the person companycerned to put the currency numberes in the almirah.
PW 11 the then Superintendent of Police stated in his statement that on 22.11.1996 the companyplainant Ram Pal submitted a companyplaint Ex.
It is to be numbered that the trial Court acquitted the respondent only on the ground that the prosecution version was number credible.
It is the accepted case of the prosecution that the money was recovered from the open almirah.
Then the companyplainant admitted the report to be companyrect before Motbir witnesses.
The same was challenged in appeal before the High Court which dismissed the same.
The trial Court found that the accusations have number been established.
It is pointed out that money was recovered from the almirah of the respondent.
P 21 before him and about this report Motbirs were informed.
This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J.There were two companyplainants one of them was number examined and the other did number support the prosecution version.
The Stand of the State was that the presumption under Section 20 of the Act has number been kept in view.
Strangely numbere of the Motbir witnesses companyroborated this statement of this witness.
A witness stated that this is companyrect to say that he did number hear any companyversation between the companyplainant and the accused and he also did number see any transaction.
The independent witness also did number support the prosecution.
But he had number stated that the sitting room was searched by him or other Motbir witness.
Learned companynsel for the respondent supported the judgment impugned in the appeal.
