NARAYAN CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 27.7.2009 passed by the learned Special Court No. 3 at Bankura, in Special Court case No. 13 of 2004 arising out of Saltora P.S. case No. 41 of 2003 dated 18.3.2003, thereby convicting the appellant Narayan Chandra Mondal under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentencing him to undergo S.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, he suffered S.I. for a period of one month. On 17.12.2003 the driver of one track being No. W.B.-37A/2537, owned by one Sk. Sajiruddin, loaded with sand, was going from Majia towards Saltora, the appellant Narayan Chandra Mondal, the then B.L. & L.R.O., Saltora stopped the said truck at about 4.30 P.M. and took over possession of the driving license of the driver and demanded Rs. 5000/- from him. On failure of the driver to meet that demand, the appellant left the place stating the driver that unless and until he demand is met, the driving license would not be returned. Sk. Sajiruddin reported the matter to the S.D.O. and as per instruction of the S.D.O., he met the appellant in his office on 18.12.2003 and upon bargaining the appellant agreed to take Rs. 2000/- only. As per instruction of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sk. Sajiruddin paid four currency notes of Rs. 500/- each to the appellant bearing signature of the S.D.O. Sk. Sajiruddin had given signal as arranged and the S.D.O. entered into the office and asked the appellant as to why he had taken bribe of Rs. 2000/-. Initially the appellant denied the allegation but four currency notes of Rs. 500/- each bearing signature of the S.D.O. were recovered from his pocket. The matter was informed to Officer-in-charge, Saltora police station, who then and there appeared in the scene together with one Deputy Magistrate and written complaint was lodged to the police station.

(2.) The appellant was charged for committing offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and as he pleaded not guilty, the trial commenced against him. In all ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The Seizure list, statement under section 164 Cr.PC and FIR were admitted into evidence and marked Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution. No witness was examined on behalf of the defense.

(3.) The learned Court upon consideration of the evidence on record, oral and documentary, found that the prosecution brought home the charge against the appellant and accordingly passed the order of conviction and sentence which has been impugned in this appeal.