SURYADEO SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been held guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine for offences under Section 7 read with 5(i)(d) read with 3(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant worked as a Junior Engineer in the Electricity Department at Pachrukhi in Siwan. The First Information Report has been instituted by PW-7 Ramanand Prasad on the basis of a complaint received from Muni Mishra, father of Krishna Kant Mishra. According to the complaint filed on 7.10.1982, it is said that the son of the complainant Krishna Kant Mishra is the Proprietor of Krishi Yantra Udyog where he has installed a machine of 5 HP. It is alleged that the appellant was demanding bribe and harassing his son for utilizing excessive power and maintaining a defective meter. On receipt of the said complaint, which is Exhibit-4, the verifier Bhagwan Prasad was appointed, who accompanied Krishna Kant Mishra and went to the residence of the appellant. Bhagwan Prasad was introduced as a friend and thereafter the parties began to talk. The verifier alleges that the appellant threatened to disconnect the electrical line, if Krishna Kant Mishra did not pay the bribe amount. It is said that Krishan Kant Mishra paid him a sum of Rs. 40/- and told him to adjust the amount in the electrical bill and thereafter made a demand of Rs. 100/- as bribe to be paid to him on 3.12.1982. On 3.12.1982, a raiding team was constituted. Krishna Kant Mishra had given Rs. 100/- consisting of one denomination Rs. 50/-, two denomination of Rs. 20/- and one denomination of Rs. 10/- to the Inspector of Vigilance, who noted down the numbers. According to the prosecution case, the raiding team met the appellant at his house and thereafter the appellant was called in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, where the money was paid to the appellant, seizure list prepared and the appellant was taken into custody.

(2.) The defence of the appellant is that it is a completely false case and that the verification report and subsequent trap and seizure are nothing but a piece of table work. According to the defence as stated by the appellant while being examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that Krishna Kant Mishra owed money to the Electricity Board. His meter was tampered and that the appellant had filed a complaint against PW-6 before the Sub-Divisional Officer much before the occurrence on 5.3.1982 (Annexure-G/11), 26.5.1982 (Annexure-G/7) and 15.10.2011 (Annexure-G/10). All these complaints specifically speak about the money owed to the Department. The defence case further is that the Sub-Divisional Officer was friendly (sambandhi) of the appellant and as such, he favoured them. It has also come on record that the Sub-Divisional Officer inspected the premises of PW-6 and found that the meter was working in a proper condition and recorded 1437 units on 8.8.1982. This document has been produced on behalf of the prosecution and marked as Exhibit-5. The defence of the appellant regarding this document is that the previous inspection report of the meter which is Exhibit-F indicates that the meter reading is 1413 on 28.6.1982. It is submitted that it is not possible that only 24 units could have been consumed in the intervening period of two months. Exhibit-F is proved by DW-3. The cross-examination of DW-3 does not indicate that Exhibit-F should be disbelieved by the Court. Virtually, all the witnesses have, to some extent, admitted that the Junior Engineer was Incharge of collecting the electricity dues and that a number of villagers were in the habit of making part payment of the dues.

(3.) In this context, the Court will examine whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case on three counts; (a) that the money seized was bribe money, (b) that the seizure was made in the manner as provided under the law, and (c) whether the post-trap procedure has been followed.