DILIP KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the 7 th Addl. Judicial Commissioner -cum -Special Judge (C.B.I.), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 5A/2000(R) on 17.1.2003 whereby and whereunder the sole appellant Bisheshwar Nath Singh was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. He was further convicted under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/ - with default stipulation of simple imprisonment for one month and two months respectively on each count.
(2.) THE facts of the case in short was that the complainant P.W. 5 Triveni Mahto presented a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., at Ranchi on 17.5.2000 stating therein that he was an employee as the piece rated labourer in C.C.L. Colliery, Kuju since May, 1996 but he was doing the job of casual labourer (group 5) since September, 1999 on the direction and instance of the appellant B.N. Singh, an Overman in Kuju Colliery. The complainant alleged that sometimes ago the appellant B.N. Singh offered that if he wanted to continue doing job of casual labourer on higher wages without hindrance, then he will have to pay Rs. 2500/ -(as gratification) failing to oblige he would be reverted back to the junior grade job of piece rated labourer. It was further narrated that on 15.5.2000 the appellant reiterated his demand of Rs. 2500/ - to which the complainant though was not inclined but assured that he would pay him the amount on 17.5.2000. The complainant came to Ranchi on 17.5.2000 and presented a complaint before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. The facts of allegation stated above as made in the complaint was verified by the S.P. through the Inspector of Police (C.B.I.) and having been satisfied prima facie with the allegation, R.C. Case No. 5(A)/2000(R) was registered and a Trap Team was constituted under the leadership of P.W. 8 Shri Akhileshwar Prasad, Dy. S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi. The complainant produced Rs. 2500/ - as per direction and the numbers of 25 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/ - each were recorded in the pre -trap memorandum. The trap was laid in the Office of the appellant Bisheshwar Nath Singh, in short B.N. Singh on 17.5.2000 and it was alleged that the appellant was caught red handed accepting the bribe money from the complainant Triveni Mahto. Search of the appellant was made after challenging him in presence of the independent witnesses and his hands as well as the pockets of his fullpant were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and upon being satisfied that the appellant had accepted phenolphthalein treated money as the said solution turned pink, a post trap memorandum was prepared with the seizure list and the appellant was arrested. The C.B.I. after investigation of the case submitted charge -sheet and accordingly charge against the appellant was framed by the Special Judge (C.B.I), Ranchi for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied his guilt when confronted with the incriminating materials appearing in the evidence during trial and also denied recovery of any amount from his possession in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. after the evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Yet, he admitted that his signature was obtained on a paper but, without recovery of any amount from his possession. The appellant denied that his hands were washed, when called upon to answer that the colour of milky solution of sodium carbonate turned pink when his hands were washed separately and such wash were mixed in, the solution of sodium carbonate. Before initiating the argument, Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Counsel submitted that the appellant remained in judicial custody for a period of more than 3 years beyond what was awarded as sentence to him to the maximum period of 2 1/2 years imprisonment and in that manner, served out more than what was required. The learned Counsel attracted the attention by submitting that since the appellant was an employee of C.C.L., his conviction under various sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 seriously prejudiced his prospect in service and hence the appeal for consideration on merit for removal of stigma so that he may get all the retiral benefits due to him on his acquittal from the charges.
(3.) WITH the consent of the contesting parties, following points are formulated for the consideration of appeal: (i) Whether the sanction obtained under Section 19 of the P.C. Act from the P.W. 3 General Manager, Kuju Area was a sanction without application of mind ? (ii) Whether any independent witness came forward to prove the pre -trap memorandum, post trap memorandum, memorandum of recovery, seizure of alleged tainted notes and other seizure lists and that the witnesses borrowed from Ranchi were interested witnesses? (iii) Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 7, 13(2) of the P.C. Act was sustainable in the backdrop that the complainant was declared hostile by the prosecution? And (iv) Whether the appellant was empowered, vested with jurisdiction to convert a piece rated labourer into casual labourer.;