SHAILESH CHANDRA KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 51 of 2000 was working as Amin at Dumraon at the time of the occurrence whereas, the appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 54 of 2000 was working as Consolidation Officer at Dumraon. Appellant Shailesh Chandra Kumar has been found guilty under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. He has also been found guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. No separate sentence is passed against Shailesh Chandra Kumar under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Shambhu Nath Ram has been found guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. He has also been found guilty under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years. It was ordered that all the sentences of both the accused shall run concurrently. This case arises out of a complaint made by Krishna Dubey, P.W. 13, addressed to the Deputy Inspector General, Vigilance, Patna alleging therein that he wanted to rectify his Chak and had approached the Consolidation Officer by filing an application. It is alleged that when he went to meet the Circle Officer, he was asked to meet Anil Babu, also working as Amin at Dumraon. Anil Babu met the Circle Officer and thereafter informed the appellant that his "Saheb" had demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for correcting the Chak. The informant requested Anil Babu to lower the rate as he could not afford to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- for this purpose. On receipt of the complaint Lakhendra Prasad, P.W. 7 was appointed as a Verifier. He has given his report which is Ext.-4 dated 5.3.1986 wherein he has stated that he alongwith the informant went to the Circle Officer's office at 10 A.M. on 3.3.1986. When they met the Consolidation Officer at about 12 O'clock, they were asked to meet appellant Shailesh Chandra Kumar as Anil Kumar was not available in the office. Shailesh Chandra Kumar similarly demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the informant. The Informant began to bargain with him and finally settled on Rs. 700/- as the rate for making payment. The verification report indicates that all the aforesaid demand and bargain took place in presence of the Verifier. It is further the prosecution case that the informant produced Rs. 700/- before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance who noted down the numbers of the "notes" so produced and returned it to the informant. The informant was to present them to the Consolidation Officer. On the date of occurrence which is 10.3.1986 the raiding party consisting of P.Ws. 1, 10, 7 and 11 went to the Consolidation Office at Dumraon. After sometime at around 3 P.M. it is said that Shailesh Chandra Kumar came out of his office and stood on the road, where the informant is said to have offered him the bribe money, which he accepted and kept in his front pocket of the shirt, he was wearing. On receiving signal, raiding party is said to have surrounded the appellant Shailesh Chandra Kumar made a search and prepared the seizure list. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and allegations the trial of this case commenced.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants have raised the several issues. It is submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove the genesis for the said demand inasmuch as the documents or objection under 10(3) of the Consolidation Act have not been brought on record to indicate that there was any occasion for Krishna Dubey to approach the Consolidation Office for correction of the Chak. It has also been argued that the prosecution has not been able to prove that the money was allegedly recovered from Shailesh Chandra Kumar and has also pointed out that there are several contradictions and missing links in the evidence. On behalf of Shambhu Nath Ram, it was argued that none of the witnesses including the informant and the Verifier have stated that they had heard the appellant Shambhu Nath Ram demanding bribe or saying any such sentence which would indicate that he was expecting some gift etc. in return for the work to be performed. Apart from which counsel for the appellants also points out that there are several contradictions in the evidence and that the prosecution has not been able to prove the ingredients of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. A defence has also been raised on behalf of the appellant Shambhu Nath Ram that the entire case has been set up by Mithilesh Kumar Singh, a B.J.P. leader who is a resident of Dumraon. It is said that he had entered the office of the Consolidation Officer destroyed his documents and assaulted him, regarding which the Consolidation Officer had filed a criminal case being Navanagar P.S. Case No. 90/85 under Sections 452, 353, 323, 426 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also pending against the said Mithilesh Kumar Singh. In order to support the defence, the appellants have produced Exts.-A to D which are the First Information Report and the order sheets of the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which have been proved by D.Ws. 1 and 2.

(3.) During trial as many as 19 witnesses were examined. P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 8 has proved the sanction order of the appellant Shambhu Nath Ram. The evidence of P.W. 9 is not very important as he has not contributed at all to the prosecution case. P.W. 12 has proved the sanction order of the appellant Shailesh Chandra Kumar. P.W. 15 is a witness with respect to the records handed by the Circle Officer to the Vigilance Department with respect to the prayer of the informant to correct his Chak. P.W. 17 is Muharir who supports the seizure list. P.Ws. 18 and 19 are formal witnesses. For the purposes of this case, P.Ws. 1, 7, 10 and 11 are the important witnesses.