PRADIP KUMAR BANERJEE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judge, 24 Parganas, 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Court Case No. 8 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- i.d. to suffer R. I. for 2 months more for offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was also sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- i.d. R. I. for 3 months more for offences under Section 13(2) of the PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 directing that and both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The short fact leading to the filing of the prosecution against the present appellant are as under : P. W. 1, Sri Shibnath Pramanik on 29.4.1991 lodged one information with the Superintendent of Police, C. B. I.7S. P. E./A. C. B., Calcutta allegingthat he was an authorized representative of M/s. Tara Sankar Construction Co. and the said firm was awarded a contract for Modification and Enlargement of the Children Park by International Airport Authority of India under Agreement No. 10/E.E-AMD/89-90. The aforesaid work was completed within the extended date and on completion the appellant who was the Assistant Engineer and one Goutam Das (Junior Engineer) were requested to arrange for making payment of the final bill.

(3.) It was further alleged that as per the practice, the bill was to be prepared by said Gautam Das, who was the Junior Engineer and approved by the appellant, who was the Assistant Engineer. But, they, however kept the bill pending In March, 1991, P. W. 1 on behalf of the firm requested the appellant and said Gautam Das for preparation and for passing their Bill without any further delay. On 18.04.1991, P. W. 1 had been to the Office of the appellant and requested him to pass final bill when the appellant called said Gautam Das and after conversation with said Gautam Das, the appellant informed P. W. 1 that unless Rs. 6,000/- was paid none of the bills would be prepared or passed.