Ravi Nath Verma, J. - (1.) THE appellant Surendra Kumar Singh suffered conviction under Sections 7 and 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (The Act) by the court of Special Judge, C.B.I. -cum -1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 23(A)/95(D) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under the aforesaid Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count with fine of Rupees One thousand each under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) with default clauses to suffer further imprisonment.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, relevant facts, which lie in a narrow compass, is given herein: - On the basis of a written complaint dated 27.12.1995 filed before Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad by one Ratan Napit (P.W.9) working as Cap Lamp Helper in Jogidih Colliery, Govindpur Area, BCCL, Dhanbad, the present case was instituted on the allegation that BCCL has acquired the joint family land of the complainant of Mouza Barmasia, Barora and though his father was compensated with the cost of land but an assurance was also given to give employment to one of the family member but as the complainant was already in employment, his father proposed the name of his brother -in -law Sudhir Napit for employment and all the required papers were submitted with the BCCL, Barora area office and was pending in the office of Surendra Kumar Singh (in short S.K. Singh) the appellant, who was Revenue Inspector, Estate Department, Barora Area -I of BCCL, Dhanbad. The said S.K. Singh on enquiry about the progress in the matter demanded Rupees two thousand as illegal gratification from the complainant for processing the papers relating to the employment of his brother -in -law. It is also alleged that finally on 26.12.1995 when P.W.9 met him, he flatly refused to proceed in the matter unless the money is paid. As P.W.9 was not interested in paying the bribe amount, the instant complaint was filed. Thereafter, the S.P., C.B.I., directed the Inspector of C.B.I., Dhanbad Shri A.K. Jha to verify the complaint and submit the verification report. It appears from the record that the said A.K. Jha, after discreet verification and finding the same to be true and genuine submitted the report on 27.12.1995. Thereafter, the First Information Report was lodged on the direction of S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad. The C.B.I. officials of Dhanbad alongwith two independent witnesses (P.W.2 and P.W.3) and the complainant (P.W.9) after completing the formalities, got a trap conducted on 28.12.1995. During the trap, the accused -appellant was caught red handed while taking bribe money of Rs. 2000/ - from the complainant and the said sum of Rs. 2000/ - was recovered from him. After completion of all the formalities, sanction order was obtained from the competent authority and charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and charges were framed as abovesaid. The charges were explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charge against the appellant during trial examined altogether 11 witnesses which are as follows: - P.W.1 -Hira Lal Dey, this witness being the Secretary to the then Chief General Manager of BCCL Area - I has proved the sanction order for the prosecution order for the prosecution of the appellant which has been marked as Ext. -1. P.W.2 -Vinay Kumar, an independent shadow witness of the trap team has given in detail the pre trap and post trap proceedings laid down by C.B.I. officials. P.W.3 - Ramjee Ram, another independent shadow witness has also confirmed the prosecution story regarding pre trap and post trap proceedings. P.W.4 - Bimlendu Das is Chemical Analyst, C.F.S.L., Calcutta and has proved his report Ext.3 and from record (Ext.3) it appears that four seized glass bottles were sent for chemical examination which were marked as 164A, 164B, 164C and 164D and after examination Phenolphthalein and Sodium Carbonate could be detected in the contents of each bottle marked as 164A, 164B, 164C and 164D. P.W.5 - Ajay Kumar Jha, Inspector of C.B.I., who had submitted the verification report on the basis of the complaint petition filed by the complainant Ratan Napit is also a witness of pre and post trap proceedings. P.W.6 - Sudhir Napit, the brother -in -law of the complainant. P.W.7 - Ram Chandra Mahto was also working as Revenue Inspector in the same Barora Area, Estate Department in the year 1995 along with the appellant. P.W.8 - Manohar Singh was posted as Personnel Manager (Administration) Barora Area on the relevant date and in his presence P.W.2 Vinay Kumar had recovered the tainted notes of Rupees two thousand from the pocket of the appellant. P.W.9 - Ratan Napit is the complainant and he has proved the complaint and has also given the evidence how the trap was arranged and how the appellant demanded and took the bribe from him. P.W.10 - Arjun Singh, who was working as Assistant Revenue Inspector, BCCL was posted there in the relevant year 1995 and he had given a letter and map of land acquired in Barmasia Mouza. P.W.11 - Tapan Jyoti Ghosh is I.O. of this case and member of the pre trap party.
(3.) AFTER closure of the prosecution evidences, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and separate questions of each material circumstance were put before him which he denied by saying that he was never posted in the Barora Area -I, BCCL. The appellant further stated that as the land of the complainant was sold before its acquisition by BCCL, the brother -in -law of the complainant was not intended for any employment and hands were never washed by any one and the appellant also claimed to be innocent.;