RATAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act (West), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.17 of 1996 arising out of R.C. No.8(A)/1995 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the P.C. Act along with fine of Rs.1000/-; awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment of four months. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Prithvinath came to the office of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Lucknow and lodged a report alleging therein that he is posted on the post of Yaan Paricharak (Coach Operator) at C.I.T. Office, Allahabad since 1983. The complainant was under the treatment of a Private Doctor for 21 days i.e. from 31.10.1994 to 13.11.1994 (14 days) and from 17.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 (7 days). Along with fitness certificate issued by the Private Doctor, he approached the Railway Doctor on which the Railway Doctor issued a fitness certificate. The complainant made an application with regard to sanction of his leave to the C.I.T., who sanctioned the leave of the complainant, but Ratan Kumar, Clerk, posted in the office of C.I.T. cancelled his leave and deducted salary of 21 days from the monthly salary. Thereafter, when the complainant met Ratan Kumar and asked the reason for cancellation of his leave, Ratan Kumar said that if you give Rs.1000/-, he would release the salary of the aforesaid period and would correct your leave account. According to the complainant, he does not want to give bribe. On the said complaint of the complainant, the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. passed an order for registration of a case and entrusted the investigation to Sri R.S. Sengar, Inspector.

(3.) On 22.2.1995, Sri R.S. Sengar (Investigating Officer), Inspector, Sri Jayant Kismiri, Inspector, Sri Vijay Kumar, S.I. and Narmada Yadav and two witnesses, namely, Adan Kumar and Brajaesh Shukla and complainant Prithvinath gathered at Officers' Rest House, Prayag. After introduction to each other, the said complaint was shown to them and a plan was prepared and was made to understand to the witnesses for trapping Ratan Kumar. Applied phenolphthalein powder to a piece of paper was given to Sri B.K. Shukla and Sri Shukla was instructed to wash his hands with Sodium Carbonate, which on such washing turned pink. A piece of paper applied with phenolphthalein powder and pink solution were sealed. Thereafter, serial numbers, being one currency of Rs.500/- and five currencies of Rs.100/-, furnished by the complainant were noted, phenolphthalein powder was applied to these currency notes and were put in the pocket of the shirt of complainant. Sri Shukla was instructed to accompany the complainant, hear the conversation between him and the accused and after completion of work, the complainant was instructed to give signal by cleaning his face. In this regard, a pre-trap memorandum was written by Sri R.S. Sengar, Inspector on which the Clerks of C.B.I. and independent witnesses put their signature.