GANGA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC") and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ( in short "the Act" ). The appellant was tried by the Special Judge (Vigilance) North Bihar, Patna. For each of the two offences as indicated above for which the appellant was convicted, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year which will run concurrently. This conviction of the appellant was maintained by the High Court in appeal.

(2.) The only question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether on the evidence and materials on record, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are justified or they require to be set aside

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal before this Court may be enumerated in the following manner : On 25th of June, 1985, Harendra Kumar Singh, the complainant (PW-6) filed an application (Exhibit-8) alleging that the appellant who was, at the material point of time, posted as an Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub-division No. 3, Patna in the State of Bihar, demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- for giving electric supply line for 5 H.P. motor for his agricultural work, and he had, under pressure, given Rs.100/- on 11-06-1985 to the appellant. The Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, Mundrika Choudhary (PW-5) was directed on 25th of June, 1985 to verify the information, and according to the verifier, the informant again paid Rs.100/- as bribe to the appellant. Thereafter the accused demanded the balance amount on 28-06-1985 in the morning and thus, the appellant by demanding bribe for giving electric supply to the complainant, had committed an offence under section 161 of the IPC and also under section 5(2) of the Act. The further prosecution case was that on 28th of June, 1985 in the morning the informant (PW-6) met the raiding party near the inspection bunglow at Sitamarhi where the informant produced Rs. 150/- meant for giving as bribe (Rs. 100/- note and another Rs. 50/- note) and a memorandam was thereafter prepared. It was the case of the prosecution further that PW-6 along with the watcher PW-5 and others of the raiding party proceeded towards the residence of the appellant and the raiding party stayed away and the watcher and the informant went to the residence of the appellant with instruction to give signal on payment of bribe on demand by the appellant. The informant and the watcher on reaching the residence of the appellant enquired about the appellant from his father and were informed that the appellant was asleep, whereupon they sat in the outer room, and the father of the appellant went inside the house and called the appellant. And thereafter, the appellant came and sat in the room. The money demanded (Rs.150/-) was paid to the appellant there, who kept the same in the pocket of the flying shirt and then the watcher, in the meantime, went out and signaled the raiding party whereupon the raiding party caught hold of the appellant and recovered the bribed money in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Kaushal Kishore Singh (PW-2) and Ram Dayal Singh (PW-12), and search and seizure list (Exhibit-3) was prepared over which the signature of the appellant (Exhibit-2) was taken.