D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, C.B.I. -cum -01st Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 20 (A)/88 (D) for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sec. 13(2) of the said Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Sec. 7 of the aforesaid Act besides imposition of fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of 2 months and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 years for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) under the said Act with a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine further sentence of 2 months R.I. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the appellant being the Post Master of Bhuli Post Office, Dhanbad, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 300.00 from the complainant, Pawan Kumar Srivastava (P.W. 1) for himself as well as for other officials of the said Post Office as a consideration for releasing the amount of family pension, payable to Smt. Chandra Badan Devi (P. W. 5), the mother of the complainant. On report by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad on 13.09.1998, a case was registered against the appellant being R.C. Case No. 20 (A)/88 (d) and consequently, a trap team comprising of C.B.I. Officials besides the complainant and the independent witnesses, namely, Shri Ram Dhyan Ojha. (P.W. 2) and Shri S. N. Mitra (P.W. 4) was constituted after a rehearsal of the proposed trap and in presence of the witnesses, trap memorandum was prepared, in which the denomination of a currency notes of Rs. 100.00 , was recorded. The currency note dusted with Phenolphthalein powder was handed over to the complainant. Thereafter the raiding party came to the Bhuli Post Office, where the members of the raiding party took their strategic positions. The complainant alongwith his mother Chandra Badan Devi and the two witnesses, named above, entered into the room of the appellant. When the complainant approached the appellant, the later enquired as to whether the separate amount of Rs. 100.00 was brought by him and on receiving an affirmative reply, the appellant allegedly reminded him about the agreed deduction of Rs. 200.00 from the total payable amount of family pension. Thereafter, on obtaining the L.T.I, of the lady Smt. Chandra Badan Devi (P.W. 5), a sum of Rs. 18,900.00 was handed over to the complainant, who counted the money. However, the acknowledgement receipt for the sum of Rs. 19, 100.00 was made, since it was explained by the complainant that the amount of Rs. 200.00 was deducted from the total payable amount of family pension. The appellant thereafter followed the complainant to the Verandah and demanded Rs. 100.00 , and in response to the demand, the complainant brought out the tainted currency note of Rs. 100.00 from his pocket and handed over the same to the appellant, who kept the currency note in the front pocket of his trouser. The shadow witnesses on receiving the signal from the complainant alongwith the other members of the raiding party pounced upon the appellant. On being challenged, the appellant accepted to have received the illegal gratification of Rs. 100.00 from the complainant. The tainted currency note was retrieved from the trouser pocket of the appellant and on comparing the number of the currency note with the number recorded in the pre - trap memorandum and the chemical test was conducted after dipping the right hand of the appellant in a solution sodium carbonate. A similar chemical test of the left hand of the appellant was also conducted and both the solutions were preserved in a separate glass phials duly sealed and signed by the concerned witnesses affixing specific mark of identification thereon. The inner lining of the trouser pocket of the appellant from where the said currency note was recovered was also dipped in a separate sodium carbonate solution and the same was also preserved in yet another glass phial with another mark of identification. The recovered tainted money was also preserved in a small size envelope duly sealed and signed by all. At the trial, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the complainant (P.W. 1), his mother (P.W. 5), two trap witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 and P.W. 4, a clerk employed at the Bhuli Post Office (P.W. 3) and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 6), the authority, who granted sanction for prosecution (P.W. 7 ) and the expert witness (P.W. 8). Besides the oral evidences of the witnesses, the prosecution had also adduced certain documents in evidence, which include the letter of sanction for prosecution (Exhibit 23). On considering the evidences on record and placing reliance on the testimony of the complainant, the trap witnesses as well as that of the Investigating officer, the trial court recorded its finding of guilt against the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him, accordingly
(3.) THE appellant has challenged his judgment of conviction and sentence on the following main grounds: (i) That the appellant was implicated on cooked -up allegation at the behest of one R.K. Prasad, who was on inimical terms with the appellant. (ii) That the prosecution has not proved that the appellant had made any demand whatsoever from the complainant or from the complainant's mother for any illegal gratification. (iii) That the prosecution has not proved by cogent and reliable evidence that the appellant had accepted or received the sum of Rs. 200.00 from the complainant. (iv) That the prosecution has likewise failed to prove that the appellant had accepted the sum of Rs. 100.00 from the complainant. (v) That no preliminary verification of the complaint lodged by the complainant was made prior to conducting the alleged raid. (vi) That the sanctioning Authority (P.W. 7) did not apply his judicial mind for granting the sanction to prosecute the appellant.;