- (1.) The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge VIII -cum Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. No. 18(A) /94(R) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) 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 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of which he is to undergo R.I. for 15 days and further convicted for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and further 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.100/- in default of which he is to undergo R.I. for 15 days and both the sentences will run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the father of one Satendra Prasad namely Janardhan had retired from the Bokaro Steel Ltd. on 31.8.89. Due to some reasons he could not the vacate Government Quarter. His father was suffering from Paralysis. His father had2 vacated the quarter on 26.11.93. His father had given an application to the Managing Director for not realising the panel rent. He has met the dealing Clerk, Vakil Sharan Singh of Town Administration on 23.8.94 then he told that for exemption of the penal rent of electricity charges, he has to give Rs.500/- to him. He requested and said that he is unable to give the money as he is a poor man. Then Vakil Sharan Singh told him to give Rs.500/- as early as possible then only his penal rent will be exempted. It appears that on receipt of the information through source with regard to the aforesaid fact of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.500/- by the accused from Satyendra Prasad regarding exemption of the aforesaid charges in respect of quarter allotted to Janardan Prasad (father of the informant), S.P.C.B.I. had directed Narain Jha, Dy. S.P. C.B.I. Ranchi on 24.8.94 to constitute a team and to contact the complainant at Bokaro Steel City on 25.8.94 at about 10 A.M. for taking necessary action against Vakil Sharan Singh. From the F.I.R. it appears that Dy. S.P. Narain Jha had constituted a team, independent witnesses were also arranged in presence of these persons as well as complainant, pre trap proceeding was arranged, details of which was recorded in a separate pre trap memorandum and thereafter, trap was laid. The accused was arrested while demanding and accepting bribe money of Rs.500/-. The same was also recovered from his possession and after this, memorandum of recovery was prepared separately. A written complaint by the complainant, Satendra Prasad was also given in this regard when he had met the Dy. S.P. Narain Jha. A written report containing the aforesaid details was prepared and formal F.I.R. was drawn on 26.8.94 and a regular case bearing R.C.Case No. 18A/94(R) was instituted against the accused appellant. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the accused appellant under the aforesaid Sections of the P.C.Act. 1988.
(3.) The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in this case.3 P.W.1 Suresh Rai, P.W.2 Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W.3 Md. Kamruddin, P.W.4 Satendra Prasad, P.W.5 Ramasuba Aijar Ram Chandran, P.W.6 Baban Tiwari, P.W.7 Baban Prasad Singh, P.W.8 Raghubansh Sharma, P.W.9 Ajay Kumar, P.W.10 Bimlendu Das, P.W.11 Narain Jha. The prosecution has produced a number of documents which have been marked Exhibits. Defence has not examined any witness neither any documentary evidence has been brought on the record on his behalf.;