VINAY KUMAR Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, against the judgment and order, dated 31.12.2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in Special Case No. 4/2005, convicting the accusedappellant under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herein after referred to as the PC Act) and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default clause for offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default clause with a default clause for offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Both the sentences are ordered to be run concurrently.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Z Kamar, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing for the accused-appellant as well as Mr. SC Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CBI.

(3.) M/S PS Enterprise of Jorhat being a firm registered with the Military Engineering Service, Jorhat entrusted with contractual work by the Military Engineering Service of Jorhat in the year 2003, vide an official work order, dated 18.01.200 The work was supposed to be completed, as per the order, on or before 21.07.200 The contractual value of the work was Rs. 11,78,986/- on completion of 75% to 80% of work, the aforesaid firm was paid an amount of Rs. 7,26,002/-, as remaining bill, against its claim for Rs. 8,66,000/- through a bill, dated 25.05.200 The accused-appellant was the Executive Engineer, Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service, Jorhat. The proprietor of the aforesaid firm, Mr. P Singha, lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Guwahati alleging that the said accused-appellant had demanded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as his commission against the work entrusted to him @ 10% of the total value of the contractual work. The complainant, Mr. Singha, requested the accused-appellant to allow him to complete the work on 07.07.200 But, the accused-appellant asked him to satisfy his demand first to which the complainant aforesaid disagreed. Then, the accused-appellant asked him to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- immediately with a further direction to pay the remaining amount on completion of the entire work. The complainant was not inclined to oblige the accused-appellant and therefore he lodged the complaint, aforesaid, marked as Ext. 10.