SUBHAS CHANDRA PARAMANIK Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against judgement and order dated 14.11.2014 passed by learned Judge, CBI Court No.4, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta in Special Case No. 2 of 2012 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and directing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) of the said Act. Both the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged against the appellant, is to the effect that one Manti Devi, P.W.3, a safaiwala attached to the Carriage and Wagon Workshop, Liluah, Eastern Railway lodged a complaint against the appellant, Sr. Labour Welfare Inspector, Welfare Sec. of the said workshop alleging that the appellant had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.5,000.00 only from her by 24.3.2000 in order to save her from initiation of enquiries in respect of complaints lodged against her. The said Manti Devi was unwilling to pay the bribe and, accordingly, contacted P.W.9 and lodged complaint against the appellant on 23.3.2000. Accordingly, R. C. No. 14(A)/2000-Cal was registered and investigation was commenced.

(3.) In the course of investigation, Investigating Officer decided to lay a trap and two independent witnesses, namely, P.W.2 and P.W.6 were requisitioned for such purpose. On 24.2000 all the aforesaid persons including the complainant assembled at CBI Office, Calcutta and the Investigating Agency gave a demonstration of the trap procedure and the entire exercise was reduced in writing as pre trap memorandum. Thereafter, all of them went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of the independent witnesses, namely, P.W.2 and P.W.6, the appellant demanded and received the bribe money from the complainant. Thereupon, upon the indication of the complaint the appellant was apprehended by the Investigating Officer and upon washing his hands and wearing apparels in water, the water turned into pink as phenolphthalein powder had been applied to the bribe money.