MANOJ DIWAKAR AND ORS Vs. CBI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment dated 16-6-2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Shillong in Special Case No. 11 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''PC Act'' for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine ofRs.5,000.00 and, in default thereof, to undergo another six months of imprisonment for each of the offences: the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) Before proceeding further, the facts leading to the filing of the appeal may be briefly noted. The case of the prosecution is that on 16-1-2002, one Tikaram Lama lodged a complaint with the CBI, Guwahati stating that on 8-1-2002, when he went to meet the accused/appellant to process the pending bill amounting to Rs.3,80,000.00 for execution of the work undertaken by him at Bagli, Meghalaya, he (appellant) demanded Rs.55,000.00 as illegal gratification for processing the same and warned him that unless the same was paid, his bill would not be processed and instructed him to bring the money at his residence on 17-1-2002. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, the complaint was lodged by him. On receipt of the complaint, the CBI planned for laying a trap on the appellant on 16-1-2002 and accordingly left for Tura along with witnesses on the same evening. On reaching Tura, the CBI team, complainant and the witnesses assembled at the Guest House of Police Officers, Tura to verify the genuineness of the complaint lodged by the complainant. One of the witnesses, namely, Shri J.C. Sharmah was asked to accompany the complainant posing as his relative to the house of the appellant to hear their conversation: the complainant and the said witness were provided with a tape recorder to record such conversation. On his return, the said J.C. Sharmah confirmed to the CBI team that there was a demand of bribe by the appellant.

(3.) It is the further case of the prosecution that the trap team, the said witness and the complainant were then given briefing and demonstration of the use of Phenolphthalein Powder and Sodium Carbonate, and the complainant, on being asked, produced Rs.50,000.00, and a number of GC Notes were then recorded in the Panchanama and were treated with Phenolphthalein Powder, which were then returned to the complainant with proper briefing that he should hand over the G.C. Notes to the appellant only he made the demand and not otherwise. The said witness was also asked to accompany the complainant so that he could witness the transaction and hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant while other members of the team and the other witness, namely, Shri Motiram Das were asked to take position at different places so that they could see the signal given by the said J.C. Sharmah (witness) as soon as the transaction was over. Finally, the complainant and the said J.C.Sharmah reached the house of the appellant at about 2.30 PM and took their respective positions as per plan. The complainant and the said JC Sharmah thereafter entered the room of the appellant and discussed about the payment of money as demanded by the appellant: the appellant agreed to accept Rs.50,000.00 after making adjustment of Rs.5,000.00 which he had taken as loan from the complainant. As agreed to by them, the complainant handed over the treated notes of Rs.50,000.00 who accepted it and after counting the number of bundles kept in the study table. Immediately thereafter, the said JC Sharmah emerged out of the room and gave signal to the trap laying team who immediately rushed to the room and challenged the appellant for demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant. The appellant was shocked by this and kept on begging for excuse. The treated money of Rs.50,000.00was recovered by the other witness (Moti Ram Das) from the study table. The left and right hand of the appellant was then washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink and the said solution was preserved in two separate bottles. A panchanama was then prepared for the proceeding of the trap, which was signed by all concerned, which was followed by the search of the house of the appellant: measurement book No. 133 was recovered from his home in which the work done by the complainant was found in which work was recorded by the appellant to have been completed as per schedule and the last entry being made on 22-9-2001. It was also found that the work was carried out by the complainant for and on behalf of his wife, Smt. Thailind Ch. Marak, who had duly authorised her husband.