- (1.) BY Court. - Both the criminal appeals since arising out of the same judgment were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BOTH the appellants, Anil Kumar singh and Michael Kerketta, functioning as Branch Manager and Cashier respectively at State Bank of India, Bingaon Branch, Ranchi, were put on trial for commission of the offence under Section 120 -B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. Learned Special Judge having found them guilty for the offences under Section 120 -B of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default to undergo simple imprisonment one month. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the FIR as well as pre trap memorandum (Ext. 10) and post trap memorandum (Ex. 11), is that one Anirudh Singh PW 5, the complainant, had applied for loan under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi for purchasing Auto Rickshaw. The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ranchi forwarded the said application (Ext. 3) of the complainant vide his forwarding Letter No.2758 dated 18.10.2003 (Ext. 3/1) to the State Bank of India at Bingaon Branch, Ranchi for sectioning loan. On receiving the said letter, appellant -Anil Kumar Singh intimated the complainant to deposit margin money of Rs. 19,302/ - in his account which he deposited. On despositing the complainant approached appellant -Anil Kumar Singh to release the amount which has been sanctioned but appellant -Anil Kumar Singh asked for Rs. 10,000/ - for releasing the amount. When the complainant expressed his inability to pay the said amount, appellant -Anil Kumar Singh asked him to pay Rs. 6,000/ - immediately and rest of money after two or three days. Thereafter complainant -Anirudh Singh, PW 5, made written complaint to the effect as aforesaid before the S.P. CBI, Ranchi on 19.11.2003. On receiving the said written complaint, S.P., CBI, Ranchi directed Mukesh Kumar Verma, Sub -Inspector, CBI to verify the allegation who on making verification found the allegation to be true and submitted verification report (Ext. 13) to the S. P. CBI, Ranchi. Thereupon, FIR was lodged. Thereupon, S.P. CBI, Ranchi constituted a team on 19.11.2003 consisting of S.K. Sinha, Inspector, Vikash Chandra Chourasia. Inspector (PW 11), Ajay Singh Solanki, Inspector (PW 13), Mukesh Kumar Verma Sub -Inspector (PW 15), Sujit Kumar Jha, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Vijay Kishore Singh, All constables under the leadership of K.K. Singh, Inspector I.O. (PW 14) for laying trap. Two independent witnesses namely, Nand Kishore Ram (PW 6) Enforcing Officer and Tapan Kumar Das (PW 10) Sectional Supervisor of the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner, were arranged. Thereafter a pre -trap memorandum (Ext. 10) was drawn after explaining the characteristic of phenolphthalein powder and its use in the trap. Currency notes amounting to Rs. 6,000/ - of the denomination of Rs. 100/ - produced by the complainant were treated with the phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant. PW 6 was asked to accompany the complainant -PW 5 to the office of appellant -Anil Kumar Singh. Thereafter, trap team left the CBI office and proceeded to bank where they reached at 10.05 hours and the members of the trap team took their positions suitably outside the back premises. The complainant PW 5 was asked to go along with Nand Kishore Ram PW 6 and contact appellant -Anil Kumar Singh. The complainant PW 5 came to appellant Anil Kumar Singh and when he wished him, appellant -Anil Kumar Singh asked the complainant PW 5 as to whether he has come with the money. The complainant -PW 5 replied in affirmative. Then appellant -Anil Kumar Singh asked the complainant PW 5 to meet the cashier -Michael Kerketta (other appellant). The complainant -PW 5 came before him and told him that Manager Saheb has directed him to give money to you for releasing the loan amount. Since many people were there is the counter, appellant -Michael kerketta asked him to wait. After a while appellant -Michael Kerketta came out of his cabin and asked the complainant -PW 5, to come along with him. They after leaving the promises of the bank came to road leading to Bingaon village. Shadow witness -Nand Kishore Ram (PW 6) also followed them but he had kept distance from them. Members of the trap team namely. V.C. Chourasia, PW 11 and Ajay Singh Solanki, PW 13, also followed them but they had maintained distance from them. When appellant/Michael Kerketta came to Bingaon village road, he demanded money from the complainant PW 5 and then complainant -PW 5 took out tainted money worth Rs. 6,000/ - and handed over it to appellant -Michael Kerketta who accepted the money by extending his right hand and counted it and then kept it in his inner ticket pocket of his trousers. After accepting money appellant -Michael Kerketta assured the complainant that his work will be done. Immediately, thereafter the complainant gave signal to the other members of the trap team who having seen the signal reached there. The IO -PW 14 challenged appellant -Michael Kerketta who became quite nervous and said that his share is only to the extent of Rs. 1,000/ - and rest is for appellant -Anil Kumar Singh. Thereupon cash of Rs. 6,000/ - (Ext. VII/59) was recovered. Thereafter hand wash of appellant -Michael Kerketta and also wash of pocket of the trousers was taken which on treatment got pink. Upon all the formalities being completed post trap memorandum (Ext. 11) was prepared. Thereafter I.O. PW 14 seized the documents relating to loan from the Almirah of appellant Anil Kumar Singh and prepared recovery memorandum.
(3.) ON completion of investigation and on procuring order sanctioning prosecution (Ext. 2) against appellant -Anil Kumar Singh which was proved by PW 2 as also sanction for prosecution (Ex. 1) against appellant -Michael Kerketta which was proved by PW 1, charge -sheet was submitted upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against both the appellants.;