PRADEEP KUMAR, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State, Department of Vigilance.
(2.) BOTH Cr. Appeal No. 36 of 2002 and Cr. Appeal No. 48 of 2002 are against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.1.2002, passed by Shri Devendra Kumar Lal, 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Special Case No. 4 of 1990 arising out of Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No. 7 of 1990, by which judgment the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner found both the accused guilty for the charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were also held guilty for abetting the accused late Tarni Prasad (now deceased) for accepting bribe on their behalf, which is punishable under Section 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. They are convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1) (d) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of both the appellants that bribe was demanded by the Officer -in -Charge of the Police Station, Mr. Tarni Prasad (now deceased) and the evidences are that it is Tarni Prasad (now deceased), who accepted the bribe money and has submitted in absence of any demand for bribe or its acceptance, the conviction of appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act is bad in law and fit to be set aside. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant Sudarshan Singh that he had played no part in demand of bribe by Tarni Prasad or its acceptance. He never instigated Tarni Prasad for demanding bribe or for its acceptance. The only role alleged against him is that after Tarni Prasad accepted the bribe money, he asked the appellant Sudarshan Singh (Havildar) to give it to the co -accused Indradeo Paswan (A.S.I.), who was investigating the case, except that there is no allegation against him, and as such, he has neither demanded bribe nor accepted bribe nor instigated the main accused for taking bribe nor he has abetted the same in any manner. and as such, this conviction under Section 12 of the P.C. Act is bad in law and fit to be set aside. He being subordinate staff working as havildar in the office of Officer -in -Charge. Lapung. has only obeyed the order of his superior, who asked him to take the money to the co -accused, Indradeo Paswan (A.S.I.), and as such, his conviction is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of both the appellants and submitted that both the appellants alongwith the main accused Indradeo Paswan (A.S.I.) participated in demanding bribe and accepted the same and thereby also opted the main accused and hence their conviction under Sections 13(1)(d) and 12 of the P.C. Act rather well founded and required no interference in this appeal.;