BINODANAND JHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal preferred under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dtd. 15/12/1998 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Jabalpur in Special Case No.44 of 1997, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in January-February, 1997 the Appellant was posted as a Branch Manager in Dena Bank, Branch Damakheda, District Durg. He was entrusted besides other duties to disburse loan/subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Yojna. Complainant Tejender Dev Chavre (PW4) had submitted an application for sanction of a loan through District Industries Centre for the purpose of electronic and watch parts. His case for loan was sent to Damakheda Branch of Dena Bank where the Appellant was the Branch Manager. The Complainant had gone to the Appellant in the Bank on 29/1/1997 for getting information about his loan. He came to know that his loan of Rs.95,000.00 was sanctioned under the Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yogna, but, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.7,000.00 from the Complainant for disbursement of the said loan and asked him to pay that amount of Rs.7,000.00 on 20/2/1997. On 14/2/1997 the Complainant lodged a written complaint (Ex.P2) before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur regarding the demand of the bribe by the Appellant. First Information Report (Ex.P28) was registered on 14/2/1997 and CBI Inspector Dhirendra Kumar (PW6) was directed for investigation into the matter. The Complainant was called to the S.E.C.L. Guest House, Bilaspur on 20/2/1997 where panch witnesses Sahwal Chandra (PW5) and Rajeshwar Singh (PW2) were also called for the purpose of giving them a demonstration of trap proceedings. The panch witnesses were introduced with the Complainant and his complaint (Ex.P2) was given to them for perusal. They verified the complaint from the Complainant. A demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution was given there. Numbers of the currency notes submitted by the Complainant were noted. Those currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter given to the Complainant for giving them as bribe. The Complainant was inculcated to give a signal after giving the bribe. All these proceedings were recorded as a memorandum (Ex.P3). The trap party proceeded towards Damakheda Branch of Dena Bank and reached there at about 1:30 p.m. The Complainant and Rajeshwar Singh (PW2) entered the Bank. On being demanded, the Complainant gave the tainted money of Rs.7,000.00 to the Appellant to which after counting the Appellant kept in the drawer. On receiving a signal from the Complainant, the trap party entered the Bank, caught the Appellant and got his right hand washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and thereafter his left hand was also got washed in a different solution of sodium carbonate. Colour of both the solutions turned into pink. Both the pink solutions were sealed in bottles. Hands of the Complainant were also got washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. That solution was also sealed. Numbers of the recovered tainted currency notes were noted and sealed in an envelope. A memorandum of all the proceedings was prepared. The amount which was received by the Appellant from Devendra Kosle was also seized vide Ex.P8. Loan case files of Complainant Tejender Dev Chavre and Devendra Kosle were seized vide Ex.P5. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination. FSL report is Ex.P30. Sanction for prosecution of the Appellant (Ex.P1) was obtained from the competent authority. On completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988'). Charges were framed against the Appellant for the said offences.

(3.) To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he pleaded false implication.