- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of sentence dated 22.12.2004 passed in R.C. Case No.4(A)/90(D) by Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-A.D.J.- VIII, Dhanbad whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count and both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. The appellant has further been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under both counts and in default of payment thereof, further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
(2.) Background facts in nutshell are as follows:- The present case was instituted on a written complaint filed by Dharamdas Karmali, a railway employee, before the C.B.I., Dhanbad, on the allegation that the complainant was working as Safaiwala-cum-Lamp Man under T.I., Choupan and was transferred to Peprakund Station under the same authority but he was asked to perform his duty at Mirchadhuri Station and though he had worked there from 26.12.1989 till 15.01.1990 but he was not given any salary for that period from the D.R.M. office and so he contacted the accused Deo Nandan Prasad Sharma, who was Head Clerk at the office of Senior D.P.O. for his salary and also requested the accused to get him transferred to Hindgiri Station. The accused asked him to bring his performance chart from Mirchadhuri Station and also in writing from T.I. Choupan and only thereafter his salary will be prepared. It is also alleged that after completing the formalities as directed by the accused, again contacted the accused on 10.02.1990 but he asked the complainant to meet again on 16.02.1990 and when the complainant met the said accused on that date, the accused asked him to pay Rs.500/- to get the order of transfer and payment of salary. After submission of the above complaint, it appears from the record that discreet verification was conducted by C.B.I. authority and after following the procedures, the case was instituted. After lodging the F.I.R., a trap was laid on 21.02.1990 in presence of C.B.I. officials as well as two independent witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.4. The accused was caught red handed while taking bribe and after completing the formalities and investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and charges were framed as above said. The charges were explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(3.) In course of trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses which are as follows:- P.W.1- Dewashis Rai. He is a formal witness and proved the sanction order of D.P.O. for the prosecution of the accused whereafter the sanction order was marked as Ext-1. P.W.2-Rajendra Prasad, a Clerk in the office of C.C.W. Dhanbad, is an independent witness called for as a witness of trap formalities. P.W.3-Kamla Prasad, A.S.I. deputed in C.B.I. on the alleged date is a witness of discreet verification before lodging the complaint and was also a member of trap team. P.W.4-Madhusudan Prasad, a witness of pre trap and post trap formalities but he was declared hostile. P.W.5 is the complainant himself. P.W.6- Vishwamohan Jha in his evidence has only stated that the appellant was working as Head Clerk in E.T.-II Section and was dealing with the file of the complainant but the appellant being a Clerk had no power to grant promotion or transfer to any of the employee and the objection on payment of salary to the complainant was made by the Pay Bill Section. P.W.7 Sanat Kumar Mukhopadhyay, Deputy Director, C.F.S.L., Hyderabad who conducted scientific examination of contents of bottles prepared during trap, so he is a witness of report of chemical examination. P.W.8 Yogendra Mahato, a Railway Porter is a witness of quarrel between Deonandan Prasad Sharma and Dharamdas Karmali, the complainant before filing of the present case. P.W.9 Prem Chandra Prasad, a Stenographer in the D.R.M. office, Dhanbad on the alleged date of occurrence, is a hearsay witness of raid in the house of the accused-appellant. P.W.10 Jai Ram Singh, a Fitter in Carriage Section of Railway is also a hearsay witness of quarrel and of the fact that complainant had taken loan from the accused appellant and because of non payment of loan amount, the quarrel took place between the appellant and complainant. P.W. 11 Lal Mohan Manjhi, D.S.P., C.B.I. was I.O. of the case.;