DWARIKA PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted u/s. 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to R.I. for 18 months under each count and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2 months by a judgment dated 8.9.1994 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna in Special Case No.95 of 1983.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the appellant accepted a sum of Rs.50/- as illegal gratification for giving an electric connection for running a pumping set to the Complainant. The prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.7 are tendered witnesses and P.W.1 is the Complainant, whereas the P.W.4 is - the verifier. P.W.8 has proved the order of sanction whereas P.W.9 is a formal witness and P.W.10 is a member of the raiding party. P.W.11 is one of the seizure witnesses and P.W.12 is the Special Magistrate (Vigilance) and P.W.13 is the Investigating officer. In effect P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 even though material witnesses were merely tendered for cross-examination and P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.13 are formal, whereas the P.W.11 is a chance witness on the point of search and seizure. P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W.10 and P.W.12 are the material witnesses. It has been submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that appellant had ever demanded any illegal gratification and, therefore, merely the acceptance of the same leading to recovery has no meaning. The further submission is that even though P.W.4 is said to be the verifier he has not stated anything about the verification of demand. On going through the evidence on record, I find that it was never the case of the complainant that the appellant had ever demanded any money from him and in fact the demand had been made by Inspector Gupta. The prosecution case was that the appellant was only handed over the money for transmission to Inspector Gupta. It also appears that the appellant was never present on any date when demand was made by Inspector Gupta and in absence of the said Gupta having been made an accused in the present case, in my opinion the prosecution case is fit to be set aside.

(3.) In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 8.9.1994 passed by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna in Special Case No.95 of 1983 is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his respective bail bonds.