RAKESH RANJAN PRASAD, J. - (1.) THE appellant, Sadan Lal was put on trial to face charges under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 5000/ - from the complainant Surendra Baraik (P.W. 7). Learned trial court having found the appellant guilty for the said charges sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 4000/ - for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Further he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half year under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 6000/ - with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Surendra Baraik (P.W. 7) had applied for grant of loan before the District Industries Center, Gumla. On loan being sanctioned, the application was forwarded to the Bank of India, Chainpur Branch for its disbursement. On receipt of such application, this appellant was asked by Ignasias Kindo (P.W. 6), the then Branch Manager to submit enquiry report which he did. Meanwhile, when the complainant did approach the appellant, Sadan Lal for getting the loan amount, he told him that in course of enquiry, his shop has been found to be too small which needs to be increased in size. The complainant, as per the advise, did that. After doing that, when he again met the appellant, he told the complainant that a sum of Rs. 75000/ - has been sanctioned but that would be disbursed to him only when he pays 10% of it. The complainant expressed his inability to meet the demand. Thereupon the appellant told him that he would be paid the money in instalment and the first instalment would be given for purchasing the furniture and out of that amount, he will have to pay money to him. Thereupon a cheque of Rs. 12,875/ - was given. After purchasing furniture when the complainant met the appellant on 13.1.1995, he asked him to pay rest of the money. Upon it, the appellant told him that rest of the money would be paid only when 10% of that amount is paid. Out of it, he may pay him Rs. 5000/ - at first instance and the rest of the amount of Rs. 2500/ - be paid, after the loan is disbursed. However, the complainant asked for some time.
(2.) THEREAFTER the complainant made a complaint in writing (Ext. 11) before the S.P., C.B.I. On receiving the said complaint, the then S.P., C.B.I. asked one Dy. S.P., D.B. Singh, (P.W. 12) to verify the allegation. P.W. 12 having interacted with the complainant did find the substance in the allegation and hence, submitted verification report (Ext. 15). On receiving verification report, P.W. 10 Shravan Kumar, Dy. S.P., C.B.I. registered a case as R.C. No. 2(A)/95(R) under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 14) was drawn. Thereupon P.W. 10 was entrusted with the investigation, who constituted a team consisting of himself, other C.B.I. official (P.W. 12), the complainant (P.W. 7) and two independent witnesses, Abhay Kumar Jha (P.W. 3), Manager, C.C.L. and llias Ba, an Income Tax Inspector (P.W. 5). Thereafter pre trap exercises were undertaken whereby 45 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/ - and one currency note of denomination of Rs. 500/ - produced by the complainant were treated with a Phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant after its numbers were noted in the pre trap memorandum (Ext. 2A) with the instruction to him as well as to the witnesses particularly P.W. 3 to hand over the same to the appellant only he makes demand and then to convey it by giving signal to the members of the trap team. Thereafter the team led by P.W. 10 came to the Bank. The complainant entered into the Bank where P.W. 3 also came by following complainant. The appellant was found sitting at the counter of the Bank. The complainant told him that he has arranged money. Thereupon the appellant told him that if it is so, then he will get rest of the amount. By saying so, the appellant asked him to come out of the Bank. On coming out of the Bank, the appellant along with complainant came to the shop of one Vijay Kumar (P.W. 9). P.W. 3 following them also came there. There the appellant asked the complainant to give money to him. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 5000/ - was given who kept it in a Rexin bag and put it in his cash box/drawer. Thereafter the appellant told the complainant that now he will be getting money and then left that place. At that point of time, members of the raiding team reached over there and challenged Vijay Kumar who on being asked disclosed to them immediately that he had kept money at the instance of appellant. Thereupon money which had been kept in a Rexin bag was recovered. On verification, currency notes were found to be the same which had been given to the complainant after it was treated with Phenopthelene at the time of pre trap exercises. Thereafter Phenopthelene test was undertaken whereby right hand fingers of Vijay Kumar were dipped in the solution kept in a container, upon which it turned pink. The said container was sealed over which signatures were put in G.C. notes of denomination of Rs. 100/ - (Exts. VI to VI/44) and G.C. notes of denomination of Rs. 500/ - (Ext. Vi/45) was kept in an envelopes (Ext. 7) which were sealed. Thereafter post trap memorandum (Ext. 16) was prepared. Thereafter relevant records were seized from the Department of the Bank and the Investigating Officer got the statement of Vijay Kumar recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he admitted that the appellant had asked him to keep the money which was to be taken back by the appellant later on. The Investigating Officer having obtained sanction order (Ext. 1) submitted charge sheet, upon which cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was taken against the appellant. Subsequently, when the charges were framed, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In course of trial, 12 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution.
(3.) AFTER closer of the prosecution case, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him which he simply denied. Thereupon the learned trial court on finding the testimonies of the witnesses to be trust worthy recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as aforesaid.;