Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 22.09.2001 and sentence dated 24.09.2001, passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in connection with R.C. Case No. 5(A)/92(D) whereby the appellant has been held guilty for offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Section 7 of the PC. Act and R.I. for three years under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, is that the appellant was working as Leave Clerk at Basudeopur Colliery, Sijua under BCCL, Dhanbad at the relevant point of occurrence. It is disclosed that Mithu Pasi, one of the employee of said concern, had requested the appellant for payment of his L.L.T.C. claim whereafter the appellant demanded Rs. 500/ - as gratification for obliging said Mithu Pasi. Thereafter Mitnu Pasi went to the Office of the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad on 20.05.1992 and reported the matter that illegal gratification has been demanded from him by the appellant. In order to verify the information one of the officer of C.B.I., namely Tapan Jyoti Ghose (PW -6) was appointed who went to Basudeopur Colliery to verify the information and he has submitted his verification report on 20.05.1992. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint lodged by Mithu Pasi, case No. R.C. 5(A)/92(D) was instituted. On 21.05.1992 the complainant again went to the office of C.B.I. where other officials were also present. Pre -trap memorandum was prepared, currency notes denomination of 100/ - each, five in numbers, were produced by the complainant on which naphthalene powder was sprinkled and handed over back to the complainant to give the same to the appellant on demand. All the officers were directed not to keep money with them and demonstration was shown to the extent that after touching naphthalene powder when the hands were deeped into a solution of Sodium Carbonate, the colour of that solution turned pink. That demonstrated pink solution was sealed in a bottle and sealed in an envelop which was duly signed by the witness present in the office. Thereafter a team of C.B.I., with shadow witness PW -2 Shiv Kumar Ram and the complainant, went to the office of the appellant. The complainant Mithu Pasi entered the office of appellant, wished the appellant Nanhku Ram who asked him whether he has brought money. The informant replied in positive and after demand handed over said 500/ - rupees to appellant Nanhku Ram. Shiv Kumar Ram PW -2 then signaled after which other officials of the C.B.I. assembled near the place but by that time the appellant came out of his office and he was talking to the complainant by standing at the portico. In the meantime, he was apprehended and brought to the office of agent of the BCCL. Since the agent was not present, other higher officials of BCCL were informed and after their arrival the matter was brought to the notice of those officials and in their presence the appellant was asked to produce the money which he had taken from complainant. Thereafter the appellant took out said sum of Rs. 500/ - from his left pocket. Thereafter solution of Sodium Carbonate, kept in three glasses, were brought in the office and hands of appellant were directed to be deeped after which colour of that solution turned to pink. In the third glass the pocket in which money was kept by the appellant was also washed whereafter colour of solution kept in third glass also turned pink. Formalities with regard to seizure of currency notes recovered from possession of accused/appellant and seizure of those solutions were made in presence of witnesses. The accused/appellant was then formally arrested and other formalities with regard to arrest have also been done. The C.B.I. officers, after completion of investigation, submitted chargesheet and lastly the appellant was put on trial when he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined altogether 9 witnesses including the complainant and the trial Court, on the basis of documents and evidences available on record, held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as aforesaid an hence this appeal.
(3.) THE appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the evidence of witnesses are not consistent and suffers with contradiction on material points. The complainant PW -7 in his deposition in Court has stated that he informed the matter to B.K. Birdi (PW -9). He did not admit that PW -6 ever accompanied him to Basudeopur Colliery for any verification of the occurrence which he had reported to C.B.I. If the statement of complainant is taken to be true, then there will be no verification by any officer of the C.B.I. and if there was no verification, there was no occasion to arrange trap to catch the appellant red -handed. Learned counsel has further submitted that PW -8, who happens to be officer of the BCCL, has seated that when he was informed that one of the employee of BCCL has been apprehended with the charge of receiving illegal gratification, he was surprised. Introduction of accused/appellant was given to this witnesses because the accused was not known to him from before. This witness has stated that each hand of the accused were caught by two different persons The appellant was asked to take out money from the left pocket of his Kurta and for that the person who was holding his left hand relaxed him to that extent and then the accused/appellant took out the money from his pocket and produced the same before the officers present. It is argued that hands of the appellant was not treated with the solution of Sodium Carbonate before he was asked to take out money from his pocket. This create a doubt and give force to a suggestion that money might have been trusted in his pocket by someone to implicate him in a case. If the appellant had taken money prior to that it was expected that his hands must have been smeared with naphthalene powder and therefore to make it sure that he had taken bribe his hands were required to be deeped into solution of Sodium Carbonate. Since this exercise was not done before recovery of the money the case of prosecution becomes doubtful. It can well be said that money had been planted in order to implicate him in this case. It is pointed out that it was not the case of the prosecution that as soon as the appellant took the bribe money in his office, he was immediately apprehended rather the prosecution has described the place of occurrence at three places i.e. first the office of the appellant, second the portico situated in front of the office where he was caught and the third the office of the agent where bribe money alleged to have been recovered. No cogent explanation has been extended by the prosecution as to why all the formalities were not done in the office of the appellant itself where he had taken bribe money. By extending above argument it is contended that the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the learned trial Court has failed to visualize these aspects of the prosecution case and held the appellant guilty in a routine manner placing full reliance on the evidence adduced by the prosecution.;