DILIP KUMAR SINHA,J. - (1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.9.2006 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, 8th -cum -Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 4(A)/86(D) whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 161 I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, accordingly, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. Besides his substantive sentence for imprisonment under the P.C. Act, fine of Rs. 500/ - was awarded to him with default stipulation to serve out rigorous imprisonment for one month and both the sentences recorded against him were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution story in brief was that the complainant Rohan Manjhi presented a written report to the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad narrating therein that he was working as loader in Lohapatti Colliery. On 4.1.86 he sustained injuries in his leg while he was on duty and he informed the Shift Incharge about his injury. He went to Lohapatti Colliery Hospital and got his injuries examined as per instruction of the Shift Incharge by the appellant Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lall, who though provided medicine to him but did not issue sick report to the complainant. As such the complainant informed the Shift Incharge and only on his interference the appellant Dr. Lall issued sick report to the complainant. The complainant further narrated that on his recovery from sickness he went to the appellant after 12 days requesting to issue his fitness certificate but in lieu of that, it was alleged, that the appellant Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lall demanded Rs. 200/ - as gratification. The complainant further narrated that he persuaded the appellant that he was a poor man but the appellant was adamant not to issue certificates without receiving gratification. The complainant further narrated that though he arranged Rs. 200/ - but was not inclined to deliver it to the Doctor, hence the written complaint. After preliminary verification, R.C. Case No. 4(A)/86D was instituted on 11.2.1986 for the offence under Section 161 I.P.C. against the appellant Dr. Shambhu Sharan Lall. A raiding party was organized on 12.2.1986 consisting of the officers of C.B.I. viz. P.W.7 Ram Chandra Choudhary, L.N. Manjhi and A.K. Asthana, both Inspectors of C.B.I. but not examined, A. Dey S.I., C.B.I. (not examined), Ramjit Rai, S.I., C.B.I. (not examined), P.W. 4 Head Constable C.B.I. N.K. Singh and Afsar Khan (not examined), V.K. Rai (not examined) besides the independent witnesses P.W. 2 Braj Bansi Prasad Singh and P.W. 3 Saroj Kumar Jha as also the complainant Rohan Manjhi (not examined). A preliminary memorandum was prepared at the office of C.B.I., Dhanbad on the production of 2 G.C. notes by the complainant of the denomination of Rs. 100/ - each which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and returned to the complainant with the instruction to pay the said treated notes only when demanded by the appellant. The hands of the members of the raiding party were washed with soap and subsequently the appellant was trapped with the tainted notes, which were delivered by the complainant Rohan Manjhi. The C.B.I. after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellant under Section 161 I.P.C. and Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the appellant and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken. The appellant was put on trial after framing of charge against him.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel Mr. Rana Pratap Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that according to the prosecution case the informant was Rohan Manjhi but it would be evident from the charge that it was Roshan Manjhi from whom the appellant allegedly demanded Rs. 200/ - for the issuance of fitness certificate to enable him lo join duty and that he was caught red handed while demanding and accepting Rs. 200/ -. Further charge against the appellant was that he demanded and accepted gratification and obtained pecuniary advantages to the extent of Rs. 200/ - with the abuse of his official position as a public servant and in that manner he committed offence punishable under Section 5(2) r/w Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and in that view of the matter, according to the learned Counsel, the appellant was highly prejudiced.;