NAGESHWAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the Judgment dated, 30.01.2003 of the Special Judge, vigilance, Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 62 of 1992 (arising out of vigilance RS. Case No. 29 of 1992) whereby and whereunder the Appellant has been convicted under Ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 201 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 250, R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 and R.I. for one year and all the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution commenced with the written report dated, 4.07.1992 (Exh. -3) of the informant Prahlad Mahto (who was not examined before the Trial Court, as he had died), a lecturer in Bhagwan Budha College, Mithapur. He alleged in his written report that in the first week of May, he had submitted a surrender certificate along with application to the Clerk Nageshwar Babu (Appellant) of the Rationing Office for preparation of ration card. He (Appellant) had asked him (informant) to come after two months and collect the prepared ration card. Accordingly, he (informant) went to the Office on 1.07.1992 and demanded the ration card, whereupon he (Appellant) obtained his (informants) signature as acknowledgment of the receipt and gave the ration card but at the same time also demanded Rs. 10.00 for the same. He (informant) refused to give Rs. 10.00 whereupon he (Appellant) took the card back from his (Appellants) hand saying that he (Appellant) will not get the card unless he pays Rs. 10.00 because he (Appellant) used to take Rs. 10.00 from everybody for it. He (informant) was unwilling to pay the money as illegal gratification, hence, he approached the vigilance Authority and filed his written report (complaint) addressed to the Inspector General -cum -Special Secretary of the vigilance Department. After receiving the written report, verification of the matter was done by Inspector Harishchandra Singh (P.W. 9) who submitted his verification report (Exh. -4) whereafter F.I.R. (Exh. 2) was lodged and the investigation commenced. In course of investigation a trap was led by the Vigilance Department for apprehending the accused -Appellant on his receiving the bribe money as demanded by him. The bribe money i.e. a ten -rupee note which was treated with the phenolphthalein powder was recovered from the possession of the Appellant who was arrested by the vigilance team and while the seizure -list for Rs. 10.00 was being prepared a mob comprising -of Office people and others assembled and indulged into manhandling the members of the team and also pelting brick -bats and the seizure -list and other papers were also snatched from the possession of the members of the team for which the vigilance team instituted Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 213 of 1992 under Ss. 197, 149, 224, 225, 337, 323, 307, 353, 379,342 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant and several others and it was also stated in the FIR that the papers, including the seizure -list, bag etc. were snatched from the members of the team but the recovered currency note of ten rupees was anyhow saved and preserved by one of the members of the team and it was produced at the time of filing of said FIR (Gandhi Maidan RS. Case No. 213 of 1992). On completion of the investigation, charge -sheet was submitted and the Appellant was put on trial and on conclusion of the trial, he was convicted and sentenced, as above.

(3.) OUT of the prosecution witnesses, P.W. 1 Binod Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, vigilance had led the vigilance Team. He deposed that the informant had produced ten -rupee note and after noting its number in the pre -trap memorandum it was treated with phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration of reaction of phenolphthalein power with solution of sodium carbonate was done and the note was given to the informant for handing it over to the Appellant on demand as bribe. He also deposed that a trap was led and when the Appellant took ten -rupee note from the informant, he was caught and a seizure -list was prepared but at that time several persons assembled and started abusing them and also pelted stones and snatched their articles, including the seizure list which was prepared. He further deposed that Mahendra Prasad, Office Superintendent and Mobin, Assistant of the Office had signed the seizure -list which was snatched but these two witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 further deposed that due to assault by the mob, informant Prahlad Mahto and S.I. Hari Shankar Singh had received inquires for which Gandhi Maidan P.S.Case No. 213 of 1992 had been instituted. At Para -17 of his evidence, he further deposed that the tainted money i.e. recovered ten -rupee note had been kept and preserved by him. The ten -rupee note was produced during the trial and it has been marked as Exh. -1.