- (1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment and conviction dated 5.5.2004 passed by the Special Judge, CBI -cum - Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 10(A) of 89(D), whereby he has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under both the sections and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - under both the Sections and in case of nonpayment of fine further S.I. of six months and both the sentences will run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that one Praful Chandra Das an ex -employee of M/S. Hindustan Malables and Forgings Ltd. Dhanbad died in the month of December 1985 and his widow Smt. Heera Devi was entitled for the family pension of the said employee but the accused who is an employee of Employee Provident Fund Office, Ranchi, is delaying the matter and is not releasing the pension amount unless he was paid an illegal gratification of Rs.600/ - and a complaint to this effect was lodged before the C.B.I. Dhanbad and R.C. 10(A)/89 (D) case was registered on 26.7.89 and accordingly a trap was led on 27..7.89 at Ranchi and the raiding party consisting the officials of C.B.I. besides the complainant (P.W.1), one Rajeev Lochan P.W.2, Shibabrata Banerjee P.W.4 and Nandlal Prasad P.W.5. The accused alongwith the complainant Ashok Kumar Das and one independent witness reached at Punjab Sweets which is situated just nearby to the office of E.P.F. where portion of illegal gratification amount of Rs.200/ - is alleged to be paid to the accused on his demand and the said illegal gratification amount was already treated with phenolphthalein which after being received by the accused, was kept in the pocket of his pant. Then immediately the raiding party, C.B.I. officials, caught the hand of the accused and both of his hands were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonet which became pink then the accused was taken away to his office where the matter was informed to the superiors in the office and the pant worn by the accused was also seized by the officials of C.B.I. and the pocket was washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonet and the colour of the solution became pink and then the accused was taken into custody by the C.B.I. Officials after legal formalities After investigation chargesheet was submitted on 29.12.89 against the accused for committing the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Act. The accused appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 The prosecution, in support of its case, examined six witnesses. P.W. 1 is one Ashok Kumar Das, (the complainant), P.W.2 is Rajheev Lochan, Senior Geologist C.M.P.D.I, Ranchi, P.W.4 is Shibabrata Banerjee, U.D.C. in C.M.P.D.I. and P.W.5 is Nandlal Prasad, U.D.C. in C.M.P.D.I. P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 are independent witnesses and were members of raiding party, P.W.3 is one Ramraj Pandey, Steno of Enforcement Office who has proved the Sanction order and P.W. 6 is one Sanat Kumar Mukhapadhaya, Deputy Director of C.F.S.L. Hydrabad.
(3.) FROM the record, I find that the evidence of P.W.6 cannot be looked into or taken into account according to the order dated 18.6.2002 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Cr.M.P. No. 236 and 40 of 2002. As the P.W.3 has only proved the sanction order, therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 are only required to be considered.;