- (1.) The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 10(A)/96(R) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13 read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 he has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default of which, he is to undergo R.I. for one month and further convicted for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act 1988 and also pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default of payment of fine, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and both the sentences will run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that a telephonic information through a source on 15.6.1996 was received. As per information, one Rabindra Nath (Appellant), Assistant, Personnel Department, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from one Sadanand, Khalasi of G.M.M. Department of Bokaro Steel Plant and has agreed to accept the part payment. At the first instance for proceeding and forwarding the application of the complainant for advance L.T.C. The S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi directed P.K. Panigrahi, Inspector, C.B.I., Ranchi to take legal action in the matter. A team was constituted. P.K. Panigrahi and other officers and constables reached at Bokaro Steel City in the night on 16.06.1996. The complainant, Sadanand Paswan met the inspector, P.K. Panigrahi and other team members in the morning of 17.06.1996 and gave complaint signed by him making the allegation that he had submitted an application for sanction of advance L.T.C. This has been proposed in his department and has been forwarded to the Personnel Department for approval and for forwarding it to the Accounts Department. The matter was being dealt by Rabindra Nath (appellant) Assistant in Personnel Department. The complainant had met him on 14.06.96 in connection with the process of application but Rabindra Nath (appellant) asked to pay a bribe of Rs.500/- and then the work will be done. After a lot of request, Rabindra Nath (appellant) asked the complainant to pay Rs.100/- as part payment on 17.06.96 and further said to pay the balance amount of Rs.400/- after the work is done. The matter was thoroughly enquired by P.K. Panigrahi, Inspector and that independent witnesses were arranged. Pre-trap formalities were done. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused Rabindra Nath (appellant) who demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.100/- and the appellant was caught red handed. In this sequence, pre-trap memorandum and post trap memorandum were recorded and a first information report against the appellant was instituted bearing R.C. Case No. 10A/96(R) dated 18.06.1996 for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(3.) The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Narayan Vijay Kumar is the formal witness, P.W.2 Yogesh Narayan Chaturvedi is independent witness, P.W.3 Krishna Prasad is another independent witness, P.W.4 Sadanand Paswan is the complainant, P.W.5 Bimlendu Das is the Chemical Examiner, P.W.6 Prasanna Kumar Panigrahi is the Investigating Officer and P.W.7 Anil Kumar Srivastava is also a formal witness. Defence has not examined any witness on its behalf.;