SAILENDRANATH BOSE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave, Mr. Debobrata Mookherjea learned counsel for the appellant advanced the following contentions: (1) the investigation conducted in this case was without the authority of law, (2) the nature of the onus under S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been wrongly construed by the High Court as well as the trial Court, and (3) the sanction granted under S. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is invalid in law as the authority who granted the same had no competence to do so.

(2.) The facts leading up to this appeal are these: The appellant was an Assistant Medical Officer in the Railway Hospital at Gaya in the year 1964. P. W. 4 Doman Ram was a khalasi working under the Inspector of Works, Eastern Railway, Gaya. On March 2, 1964, as he was suffering from dysentery and stomach pain he was sent to the appellant along with a sick note for treatment. The case of P. W. 4 was that when he went to the appellant for treatment the appellant demanded and received from him Rs. 2 as illegal gratification for treating him. Thereafter he was treated by the appellant on the 5th, 7th, 9th and 12th of that month. By the 12th he had completely recovered and therefore he wanted to rejoin duty and for that purpose he requested the appellant to give him a fitness certificate. For issuing him that certificate the appellant demanded Rs. 5 as bribe and he further told P. W. 4 that unless he paid him the said sum by March 14, 1964 he (appellant) would remove P. W. 4's name from the sick list. After this talk, when P. W. 4 was going out of the hospital he met a person by name Babu. He complained to Babu about the behaviour of the appellant. The said person told him that he would meet him again on March 14, 1964, but on March 14, Mr. A. C. Das, P. W. 17, Inspector of Special Police Establishment, met P. W. 4 in his house and ascertained from him all that had happened. Thereafter P. W. 4 met P. W. 17 again at the railway station as desired by the latter. From there both of them went to the district Dak bungalow where P. W. 17 recorded the complaint of P. W. 4. The same day P. W. 17 obtained from the First Class Magistrate an order under S. 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereafter, P. W. 4 produced before P. W. 17 a five-rupee currency note in the presence of Panch witnesses. P. W. 17 noted the number of the currency note in question, prepared a memorandum in respect of the same, got it attested by the panch witnesses and thereafter returned the said currency note to P. W. 4 to be given to the appellant in case he made any further demand for bribe. After these preliminaries were over P. W. 4 went to the appellant along with the panch witnesses. There when P. W. 4 asked for the certificate, the appellant repeated his earlier demand. Then P. W. 4 gave him the currency note in question. This was seen by the panch witnesses. Immediately signal was given to P. W. 17 who came to the hospital and asked the appellant to produce the five rupee note received by him from P. W. 4. At this stage the appellant became extremely nervous. He admitted that P. W. 4 had paid him Rs. 5 but that according to him was a return of the loan given to him by the appellant. He produced the currency note in question. After investigation the appellant was charged under S. 161, I.P.C. and S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The plea of the appellant was that P.W. 4 and his wife were doing odd jobs in his house; P. W. 4 was a drunkard and hence was always in need; he used to often borrow from him (appellant); he had borrowed Rs. 5 from him some days prior to the date of the trap and he returned that amount on that day. The appellant examined some witnesses in support of that plea.