MAHESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (herinafter referred to as the &aposP.C. Act&apos) and is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three months under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988. He has been also convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the &aposI.P.C.&apos) and sentenced to under go R.I. for one year corresponding to Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief fact of the prosecution case is as follows : The appellant was posted as Sub -Inspector of Schools of Block No. 2 Lakhisarai in the district of Munger in the year 1987. The wife of the complainant Nageshwar Sharma (P.W. 9) was working as a teacher at Maheshpur Primary School of Block No. 2, Lakhisarai which was under the jurisdiction of the appellant. Due to some personal problems Gayamani Devi (P.W. 8) got herself deputed to Dharanraichak School under Block No. 1, Lakhisarai under the orders of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Lakhisarai. She required permission of the appellant for being relieved from her school at Maheshpur to enable to join her new assignment. The appellant made a demand of Rs. 300/ - as illegal gratification for getting her work done. Her husband (P.W. 9) reported the matter to the D.I.G. of Police (Vigilance), Bihar, Patna vide a written complaint (Ext. 6). Thereafter a trap was laid consisting of Dy. S.P., namely, Maheshwar Prasad Mishra (P.W. 10), Hari Shankar Singh (P.W. 4), Ram Dayal Sinha, Inspector of Police (not examined), Ram Naresh Singh (P.W. 2) and Braj Nandan Prasad (P.W. 3), both Sub - Inspectors of Police. The complainant produced a sum of Rs. 300/ - comprising of six G.C. notes (Ext. 3) each of Rs. 50/ - denomination which was alleged to be given to the appellant before the raiding party. Phenolphthalein powder is alleged to have been sprinkled on the said G.C. notes and thereafter necessary instructions were given to the raiding party. It is further case of the prosecution that when the raiding party visited his office it was reported that appellant had gone to Dwarika High School at Lakhisarai where his son was appearing at the Matriculation examination. The raiding party proceeded to the aforesaid school and the appellant was found near tea stall at that time. The complainant (P.W. 9) and Harishanker Singh (P.W. 4) came near the appellant and had some talk with him. It is further alleged that thereafter the complainant gave the said amount of Rs. 300/ - to the appellant which he accepted. P.W. 4 relayed the pre -arranged signal to the raiding party and after receipt of the signal, rushed and captured the appellant. Thereafter, in the presence of the two independent witnesses, namely, Krishna Chaudhary (P.W. 7) and Chando Sao (P.W. 6) and other members the appellant was searched, in course of which, the tainted currency notes (Material Exts. I to I/5) were recovered from the right pocket of his Bandi. The numbers of the recovered G.C. notes were compared with the numbers of notes mentioned in the memorandum prepared before it were handed over to the complainant which tallied. The search list (Ext. I to I/5) was prepared and a copy of the same was handed over to the appellant. The appellant at the time of search remained perplexed and kept mum. The tainted currency notes and the right pocket of the Bandi were dipped in two separate solutions of the sodium carbonate as a result of which the solutions turned pink from milky while giving rise to the inference that the appellant handled the G.C. notes referred to above and he had put the same in the pocket of his Bandi after receiving from the complainant. The milky while solutions turned pink on account of particulars of phenolphthalein powder which came in contact with the G.C. notes which were treated with phenolphthalen powder. After the seizure the appellant was arrested and remanded to jail custody. After completion of the investigation and receipt of sanction order (Ext. 1) charge - sheet was submitted and the trial proceeded in the court below.

(3.) FROM the admitted fact the appellant was a public servant employed as sub -Inspector of Schools at Lakhisarai Block No. 1 and wife of the complainant Gayamani Devi (P.W. 8) was school teacher posted at Maheshpur School. This fact is not in dispute that she was transferred to Dharmaraichak school on deputation by the order of the Deputy Inspector of School in pursuance of her representation and she could have attended her new place of posting only after being relieved from Maheshpur School. This fact is not disputed that appellant being sub -Inspector of School was authorised to relieve the teacher (P.W. 8) to enable her to join new place of posting. Therefore, the only two points are to be decided in this appeal; whether there was a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 300/ - from the complainant by the appellant and whether the said amount was accepted by him as illegal gratification.