SANTOSH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 16.5.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, VIII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner for his discharge was rejected in R.C. 14A/2003(D) for the alleged offence under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

(2.) The offence is related to demand of Rs. 2000/- as gratification by the petitioner Santosh Prasad who was a Clerk in the Department of Coal Mines Provident Fund, Dhanbad for processing the claim of pension/ arrears of the father of the informant Sundar Manjhi. Sunder Manjhi was superannuated from the service in the month of March, 1997 as General Mazdoor, Bera Colliery, Area IX, BCCL, Dhanbad and since then he was running from pillar to post for getting superannuation benefits. The informant finding miserable condition of his father and consistent demand of gratification by the petitioner for processing the claim lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police, CBI Dhanbad to which a preliminary enquiry was made and after having been satisfied with the allegation levelled against the petitioner a pre- trap demonstration was conducted in the office of the CBI. It was alleged that the complainant Babujan Manjhi was introduced by the petitioner with one Raj Kumar Gupta an owner of Rahul Tea Stall situated near the premises of CMPF, to deliver the bribe money to him. Accordingly a trap was laid. The complainant went there with tainted notes and upon witnessing the complainant, Babujan Majhi said Raj Kumar Gupta, owner of the tea stall, asked him to deliver Rs. 2000/- as per instruction of the petitioner Santosh Prasad. The complainant then delivered the tainted notes of Rs. 2000/- to the witness Raj Kumar Gupta who accepted the said amount on behalf of the petitioner and counted the same with both his hands. It was alleged that the petitioner was apprehended with Raj Kumar Gupta while they were talking to each other upon accepting the bribe money. Raj Kumar Gupta admitted that he accepted the tainted money on the instruction of the petitioner and that he was not aware that he had received the bribe money. The petitioner was arrested and other formalities were observed.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly no amount was recovered from the possession of the petitioner much less the bribe amount. He was appointed as assistant in the year 1991 and was posted in the personnel department of B.C.C.L. Headquarter. The learned Counsel further submitted that office of Coal Mines Provident Fund was previously under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India but later on its control was transferred to the Ministry of Coal and accordingly, the petitioner was transferred to the office of CMPF from BCCL and he joined the office of CMPF on 29.8.2001. The learned Counsel explained that the petitioner was entrusted to look after the pension works of other collieries except Bera Colliery which was entrusted to one Sanjeet Kumar Sharma who used to look after the pension work of the staff and officers from where father of the complainant retired. As the petitioner was not satisfied with the mode of working of the staff and officers of CMPF, he represented for his transfer from CMPF office which caused anguish to the senior officers and for such reason a plot was planted to implicate him falsely. As the petitioner was not at all concerned and to deal with the pension work of Bera Colliery, the question did not arise that he might have demanded gratification from the complainant for the work proposed to be done for the release of pension and other benefits of his father and the prosecution failed to establish the nexus of the petitioner with the alleged demand of bribe, as he was not at all concerned. The learned Counsel assailed the order impugned by submitting that the fact as stated herein before could not be appreciated by the learned Special Judge and he refused to discharge the petitioner only on the ground that witness Raj Kumar Gupta, who had accepted the tainted money, in his statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. clearly admitted that he had accepted the money on the instruction of the petitioner and he had no knowledge that it was bribe money.