ARYA CHOWDHRY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act S.13(1)(d) (hereinafter called the P.C. Act), 1988 dated 29.6.2000 passed by the learned Judge, South 24-Parganas, 1st Special Court, Alipore in Special Case No. 23 of 1995 thereby sentencing the accused appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 10007- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the P.C. Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence the accused appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case was started on the basis of written complaint/ FIR submitted by Hiten Majumder (P.W. 2) on 14.6.95 before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I./ACB/CAL, 13, Lindsay Street, Calcutta. It was alleged in the said written complaint that P.W. 2, the de facto complainant, purchased one flat at 6/1, Phase II, Golf Green, Calcutta - 45 from one Smt. Ibha Mitra, the then an employee of All India Radio (hereinafter called AIR), Calcutta. The appellant Arya Chowdhury, the then music composer of AIR, Calcutta was one of the witnesses in the deed of P.W. 2 for purchasing the said flat. Wife of P.W. 2 Smt. Maitreyee Majumder is a singer of light music namely, 'Atul Prasad', 'Rajani Kanta' and 'D. L. Roy3 and she got a call letter from AIR, Calcutta for audition test on 20.6,95 of 'B' Grade for light music. On 6.6.95 in the evening after returning home P.W. 2 heard from his son Debdutta Majumder that Arya Chowdhury had phoned them for urgent discussion and the accused also gave his telephone number to their son for calling him back. P.W. 2 then called the appellant over telephone but he was not available at his home. In the same night at about 10 P.M. the appellant Arya Chowdhury telephoned him again and told him that he would meet P.W. 2 for some urgent matter and also expressed his desire to visit residence of P.W. 2 on 7.6.95 at afternoon. The appellant visited the residence of P.W. 2 on 7.6.95 at about 3.30 P.M.

(3.) In course of discussion the appellant suddenly told P.W. 2 "Did your wife receive the call letter for audition for Grade 'B' to be held on 20.6.95 at AIR, Calcutta." P.W. 2 was surprised as to how the appellant could acquire that information. But, however, P.W. 2 confirmed receipt of call'letter by his wife for the audition test. P.W. 2 also asked the appellant as to how he could know the matter and the appellant replied that he learnt it from his office namely AIR, Calcutta and for that reason he has come to the residence of P.W. 2 to help him in this matter. The appellant assured P.W. 2 that he would get his wife approved for audition test for 'B' Grade in AIR, Calcutta. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs.25,000/- as illegal gratification. P.W. 2 expressed his inability to take any decision over the matter at that moment. Thereafter, the appellant made some local calls from the telephone of P.W. 2 and at about 5.30 P.M. the appellant left residence of P.W. 2 saying "Think yourself, I would contact you again." P.W. 2 discussed the matter with his wife and both of them decided not to give any bribe or illegal gratification amount to the appellant.