LAWS(PAT)-2002-2-75

RAM AVTAR SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On February 28, 2002
RAM AVTAR SAH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 200.00. in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. He has been further convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant Ram Avtar Sah was working as Amin in Survey-cum-Chakbandi operation (consolidation of holdings operation) which was going on in village Tetariya Bhiksharam P. S. Kateyan, Gopalganj. It has been stated that the complainant has some land in the same village and he contacted the appellant and asked him for entry of his name over his land, for which the appellant demanded Rs. 100.00 as illegal gratification. Further the case of the complainant is that the appellant told him that if the bribe is not paid, the work will not be done. The complainant asked for 4-5 days' time for arranging the money. Thereafter on 6th of March, 1981 he submitted an application (Ext. 7) addressed to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, for arrest of the appellant at the time of accepting the bribe. On this application the Inspector (Vigilance) was appointed as verifier by order dated 7/03/1981 of Dy. Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Mantrimandal Nigrani Vibhag, Patna, who verified the truth of the allegation of the complainant and found it correct. He submitted his report (Ext. 4) and after this verification report Additional Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Patna, directed the Officer-in-charge Vigilance P. S., Patna for institution of the case under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'Penal Code') and entrusted the investigation to Shri R.K. Singh, Dy. S. P., Vigilance Department, Muzaffarpur (Ext. 1/2). The Officer-in-charge, Vigilance P.S., Patna instituted a case as Vigilance P.S. Case No. 01, dated 16-3-1981 under Section 161 of the Penal Code. One Shri Radha Kant Singh, Dy S.P. (Vigilance) was appointed as Investigating Officer of this case (Ext. 1/1). Thereafter a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 1) was drawn up and raid was organised. A memorandum of currency notes (Ext. 2) was prepared on 17-3-81 over which Shyam Behari Pd. (P.W.9) signed as Special Magistrate. The currency notes were handed over to the complainant Bechu Pandey with a direction that when the accused will ask for the bribe, he would hand it over to him. The complainant made endorsement on this memorandum to that effect, Ext. 2/2. On 17/03/1981 at about 1 p.m. the raiding party along with the complainant went to Kateyan Bazar at the tea shop of Ramanand Prasad. The appellant came and asked for the bribe as aforesaid on which the complainant handed over Rs. 90/-. The accused kept that money in the right lower pocket of his shirt. Thereafter the raiding party arrested the appellant and after observing the legal formalities of search, searched his person and recovered the amount aforesaid paid to him by the complainant as bribe. The raiding party seized the shirt from the pocket of which illegal gratification was recovered. Thereafter the appellant handed over the sale deed of the complainant which was kept in his Jhola at his residence. The sale deed was also seized by the Vigilance Deptt. Seizure lists were prepared and the copy of which was also handed over to the appellant. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 161 of the Penal Code and under Section 5(2) of the Act. The prosecution was sanctioned by Tarkeshwar Nath (P.W.10) Deputy Director, Consolidation of Holdings Department, Siwan (Ext. 6). Cognizance was taken on 18-6-84 and the trial proceeded. Finally, the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The defence of the appellant was that as he was not a Govt. servant, none of the sections either Section 161 of the Penal Code or Section 5(2) of the Act was attracted against him and he had been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether 17 witnesses during the course of trial. P.W.1 is Madan Lal. He is Inspector of Police (Vigilance). P.W. 2 is Kedar Singh, a tendered witness, P.W.3 is Lakhindar Prasad, a tendered witness, P.W.4 is Rameshwar Prasad, a tendered witness. P.W. 5 is A. K. Bhattacharjee, Inspector, Vigilance Department. P.W.6 is Rameshwar Lal. He is Inspector, Vigilance Deptt. P.W.7 is Mahendra Pd. Deo, a tendered witness. P.W.8 is R. B. Subarno, Officer-in-Charge. P.W.9 is Shyam Bihari Prasad, Dy. Secretary, Agriculture Deptt. P.W.10 is Tarkeshwar Nath, P.W.11 is Tapeshwar Singh. He is also a tendered witness. P.W.12 is Bechu Pandey, the complainant. P.W.13 is Shyam Kishore Singh, a tendered witness. P.W.14 is Suresh Kr. Verma. He is Circle Officer, P.W.15 is Kamlesh Kumar Bhatt, P.W.16 is Radhakant Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) and P.W.17 is Surendra Kr. Singh. He is Watcher, Vigilance Department. The defence has also examined D.Ws. 1 and 2. D.W. 1 is Jai Narayan Mahto and D.W. 2 is Ram Nandan Mahto.