Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Ganguly and Deepak Verma

JUDGMENT

A.K. Ganguly, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19th January, 2005 rendered by the High Court. The Respondent facing a trial, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, in Criminal Case No. 9 of 1996 and the Respondent was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 months and pay a fine of Rs. 2500/- under the former charge and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2500/- under the second charge. Default stipulations were also there.

3. The facts relating to that case have been summed up in the judgment of the High Court and we are not repeating the same here once again.

4. In passing the order of acquittal, the High Court examined and analyzed in detail the evidence of the case. The High Court found that the complainant CW 1 was not examined and the only explanation given was that he was not available in the country but no details were given as to where the complainant was. The defense of the Respondent in this case has also been noted by the High Court in some detail.

5. The prosecution case is that the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/- was made by the Respondent from CW 1 on 19.10.1994 for the purpose of giving pass marks to all the students who appeared in the practical examination of pharmaceutical-II in D-Pharma final examination in the year 1994. It is an admitted case that the Respondent alone cannot give such marks. In view of the examination system prevailing such marks have to be approved by others. The Respondent alone, therefore, is admittedly not in a position to allot higher marks. Apart from that, it is the case of the Respondent that when CW 1 met him in a hotel room, the Respondent shouted that some currency notes had been thrust into his pocket by CW 1. Such shouts of the Respondent were heard by PW 1 and PW 2. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 were recorded by the Trial Court. The evidence of PW 1 and PW 2 could not be, in any way, shaken by manner of cross-examination. PW 3 has also given evidence of the previous animosity between the college authorities and the Respondent who had an occasion to file reports with the college authorities on the basis of some inspection.

6. In the background of these facts, especially the non-examination of CW 1, was f........