LAWS(PAT)-2008-4-32

RAZA IMAM RIZVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 25, 2008
Raza Imam Rizvi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal arises out of and is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 1992 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance (South Bihar), Patna in Special Case No. 36 of 1986, whereby the appellant has been found guilty under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year. The learned trial court has further found the appellant guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and was also imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/ - and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE present case germinates out of the complaint (Ext.12) lodged by one Nagendra Pd. Singh (P.W.13), a retired officer of the Excise Department, which was subsequently treated as an F.I.R. (Ext.3). As per the prosecution case, the appellant during the relevant time was posted as the Under Secretary in the Department of Excise, Government of Bihar, Patna, and as such was a public servant. The complainant (P.W.13) had retired from the post of Superintendent of Excise sometimes in the year, 1984 and was facing a departmental proceeding which was pending consideration before the government and on account of such pendency of the proceeding his payment of full amount of retrial dues was/were withheld. It is the prosecution case that the complainant (P.W.13) wanted that the proceeding pending against him be dropped and he should be paid the full amount of post retrial benefits. It is an admitted position that the complainant was getting provisional pension on account of the pendency of the proceeding.

(3.) THE investigation was whereafter taken up and Manoranjan Kavi, Inspector, (P.W.14) was made the Investigating Officer of the case. Upon conclusion of the investigation the chargesheet was made and thereafter the cognizance was taken. The appellant denied the allegation and claimed to be innocent and hence the trial.