JAYA ROY,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the C.B.I. Both the parties have filed their written arguments in this appeal.
(2.) THE appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- VIII- cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. No. 6/85(P) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 161 Indian Penal Code and 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. For one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 on each account and in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) for one month. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused Pradeep Kumar Dutta (appellant), the then Branch Manager of Bank of India, Rajdhanwar Branch Giridih had demanded Rs.1000.00 as illegal gratification from the complainant on 23.3.85 for releasing of Rs.10,000.00 towards balance amount of sanction loan amount of Rs.25,000.00 under self employment scheme. Later on repeated request the complainant, Arjun Rai was asked by the accused appellant atleast to pay Rs.200.00 within March, 1985 as illegal gratification for releasing the balance amount of the sanctioned money. The complainant filed a written report to the S.P.E., Patna on 26.03.85. After verification the allegation were found true and a trap was organised and the complainant alongwith witnesses and C.B.I. officials went to the residence of the appellant on the 2nd floor of the Bank and allegedly paid Rs.200.00 to the appellant and thereafter gave signal to the C.B.I. officials who arrested the appellant and recovered Rs.200.00 from him. According to prosecution the appellant after receiving the currency notes had counted the same and then he had kept the amount, in the pocket. The hands of the appellant were allegedly washed in the solution of sodium Carborate. The solution washing one hand turned pink and a regular case bearing no. R.C. No. 6/85-Patna dated 26.3.85 at 11.A.M. hours was instituted against accused appellant Pradeep Kumar Dutta under Section 161 I.P.C. After investigation, C.B.I. had submitted charge sheet for the offence under Section 161 I.P.C. and section 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of P.C. Act against the accused appellant.
(3.) THE prosecution has examined altogether Nine witnesses. P.W.1 Gajendra Chandrasen Gurakshakar, P.W.2 Krishanan Benkatacharan, P.W.3 R.S.S. Yadav, P.W.4 Ramrup Singh, P.W.5 D.S. Yadav, P.W.6 Ashok Babu, P.W.7 Md. Javen Ajit, P.W.8 Luxman Prasad Gupta, P.W.9 Kedar Nath Gupta. The prosecution has got exhibited some documents i.e. two Sanction orders- Ext.1 & 1/1, Ext-2 is memorandum and Ext-2 series are signatures on memorandum, Ext.3 is signature of accused, P.K. Dutta on memorandum, Ext-2/3 to 2/22 are signatures on the seizure memorandum, Ext-4 is F.I.R. Beside this, the prosecution has proved, material exhibits i.e. Ext-I sealed bottle, Ext.-II one sealed envelop containing treated piece of paper, Ext.-II/1 sealed envelop of remain of used phenolphthalein powder, Ext. II/2 one envelop, Ext.-III to III/6 are G.C. Notes, Ext.-I/1 and I/2 are sealed bottles material, Ext.-IV is also sealed bottle and II/a to II/d are signatures on envelop of phenolphthalein powder. Ext.2/E to 2/F are signatures on the envelop of the treated piece of paper and further Ext.-I/2a to I/2c are signatures on pocket wash bottle, Ext.-I/1a to I/1d signature of right hand wash bottle and II/2a to II/2e signatures on envelop of G.C. Notes.;