- (1.) THE appellant - Debabrat Mukherjee was put on trial to face charges under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.1000/ - from complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2. Learned trial court having found the appellant guilty for the said charges sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ - for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that one Stall was settled at railway platform at Ranchi Railway Station to one Smt. Kalawati Devi which was being run in the name and style as M/s South Indian Stall by the complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, as Manager, nephew of Smt. Kalawati Devi. The appellant being posted as Station Manager of Ranchi Railway Station used to put demand of Rs.1000/ - every month from complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, but he never obliged him and as such, he was being abused and threatened oftenly. Further case of the prosecution is that on 18.7.2005, the appellant came to his Stall and asked for Rs.1000/ - but the complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, refused to oblige him. However, the complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, was asked to meet the appellant at his residence on the next day i.e. on 19.7.2005. On the next day, when the complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, came to the quarters of the appellant, he told the complainant that if he will not pay money, he would get his license cancelled by making complaint that the Stall is being kept untidy and he never cares for its cleanliness. Thereafter complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2, made written complaint (Ext. 4) before the S. P., C.B.I., Ranchi on 19.7.2005 who endorsed the matter to one B.N. Roy, Inspector of C.B.I., P. W. 1, for verification of the allegation made in the complaint. On getting the order, P.W. 1 came to the quarters of the appellant along with the complainant - P.W. 2. On calling by P.W. 2, the appellant came to Varanda of his quarters where complainant -Kismat Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 introduced P.W. 1 as his contractor. When P.W. 2 told the appellant that he will be going to his village home for a fortnight, the appellant asked him to give Rs.1000/ - by evening in his office and also said that if he will go on making payment, he will never make any complaint. On getting allegation to be true, P.W. 1 submitted verification report (Ext. 1) to the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi and thereafter a case was registered as R.C. Case No. 9(A) of 2005 A.H.D. and a formal FIR (Ext. 7) was drawn under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thereupon, Bir Kuwar Singh, P.W. 7, was entrusted with the investigation, who constituted a team consisting of himself and other police officials including Basant Lal, P.W. 3, Binod Prasad Sharma, P.W. 4, who were summoned from Khadi Gram Udyog where P.W. 4 was working as Supervisor and P.W. 3 was working as Assistant Lecturer. Thereafter pre -trap exercises were undertaken whereby ten currency notes each of the denomination of Rs.100/ - produced by the complainant were treated with the phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant after its numbers were noted in the pre -trap memorandum (Ext. 8) with the instruction to him as well as to the witnesses particularly P.Ws. 3 and 4 to hand over the same to the appellant only when he makes demand and then to convey it by giving signal to the members of the trap team. Thereafter, the team led by P.W. 7 left for Ranchi Railway Station where they reached at 5:15 p.m. and the complainant was again reminded to hand over the money only when the demand is made by the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant, P.W. 2, and Basant Lal, P.W. 3, entered into the chambers of the appellant situated at Platform No. 1 where they found the appellant present over there but the appellant on seeing them immediately came outside of the chambers where he was greeted by the appellant and thereafter the complainant, on being asked to give money, handed over Rs.1000/ - which the appellant accepted by his right hand and took it in the left hand and while he was trying to keep it in his pocket, P.W. 7 challenged him and upon it the appellant threw the money (Ext. VI to VI/9) on the platform. Immediately thereafter the appellant was caught hold of by his wrist and the money was collected by P.Ws. 4 and 7 which on verification was found to be of the same numbers which had been given after phenolphthalein treatment to the complainant, P.W. 2, at the time of pre -trap exercises. Thereafter, phenolphthalein test was undertaken whereby both the hands of the appellant were dipped separately in solution kept in the containers upon which it turned to pink which was collected in the containers separately. In course of trial, bottle containing right hand wash was proved to be Ext. III , whereas container containing left hand wash was proved to be Ext. IV. Thereafter post -trap, memorandum (Ext. 9) was prepared over which the witnesses put their signatures and the appellant was arrested. Thereupon, on search being made of the office of the appellant, one file relating to the settlement of M/s South Indian Stall including one Authority Letter (Ext. 13) authorizing the appellant to run the Stall was also seized. P.W. 7 also took the statement of the witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 3 and 4. Thereafter, further investigation was taken up by Ajay Kumar Jha, P.W. 9, who sent the report of each sample of the hand wash to the Director, Central Forensic Science Laboraory, Calcutta where it was examined by Bimal Chandra Purkait, P.W. 8, who after its examination submitted its report (Ext. 11) under his forwarding Letter (Ext. 17).
(3.) THE Investigating Officer on getting sanctioned order (Ext. 15) by the Competent Authority for prosecution submitted charge -sheet under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant upon which cognizance of the said offences was taken. Subsequently, when the charges were framed, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.;