The State v. Shri. Samar Biswas

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRA/4/2025 The State Vs Shri Samar Biswas Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind Mr. Mansoor Ali Mr. T. Harish Kumar ... for the respondent February 03, 2026 [AKB] Item No.21 The learned Counsel for the State has submitted that the accused was a Senior Investigator and clerk in DC Office at Mayabunder. The de-facto complainant was an owner of a Restaurant and Bar at Diglipur.

For renewal of licence of the Bar he filed an application before the Office of the accused and according to de-facto complainant as the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- for performance of his public duties, he made a complaint to Anti Corruption Unit. A team was constituted, trap was laid and all formalities were done. Charges under two heads were perfectly framed against the accused and the prosecution examined seven witnesses. Although the PW-1 was declared hostile, the PW-1 has categorically stated in his deposition that the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- from him for renewal of licence of the concerned Bar.

PW-2 and PW-3, being shadow witnesses, corroborated with each other and also supported the prosecution case. The other witnesses such as PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 also supported

the prosecution case. Although the prosecution was able to produce all relevant and convincing evidence against the accused, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused from all charges on the ground that the prosecution was not able to prove the case against the accused beyond all sorts of reasonable doubt.

The learned Counsel for the respondent Mr. Rakesh Pal Gobind has drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of F.I.R. and pre-trap memo. He has harped on the point that seizure memo was prepared one hour before lodging of the F.I.R. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to various discrepancies in the evidence and also on the exhibits relied upon by the prosecution. According to him, as the prosecution was unable to prove the case against the accused beyond all sorts of doubt, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the accused.

I have considered the materials on record including the evidence of all the witnesses of the prosecution. It appears from the deposition of PW-1 i.e. the de-facto complainant that he has in his cross-examination stated that he falsely stated in his deposition dated 26.10.2017 that accused Samar Biswas demanded Rs. 10,000/- from him on 02.12.2014. The PW-2 and PW-3, being the shadow witnesses, have categorically deposed that they did not see the complainant handing over the currency notes to the accused nor they heard the accused demanding money from the complainant. In fact their deposition did not support the prosecution case.

The trap laying Officer could not be examined since he died during trial. The record further shows that the original complaint was not exhibited. Only one Xerox copy of complaint was produced but ultimately the same was not marked as exhibit.

In this type of case the demand of bribes and acceptance of such illegal gratification has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt either by way of direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. In this case the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges either by dint of direct or circumstantial evidence.

I find sufficient discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused beyond all sorts of doubt. I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Port Blair, South Andaman.

Accordingly, the CRA 4 of 2025 is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned Court of Special Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair along with copy of this judgement at once. (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)