DHANESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties through video conferencing.

(2.) The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 05.03.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-I, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.6A/95 (D) whereby and where under the learned court below has held the accused-appellant guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. alleging that the accused-appellant-who was a postman at the relevant time in Munidih Sub Post Office in the District of Dhanbad, had demanded Rs.100/- as illegal gratification for delivering a registered letter addressed to the sister of the complainant. Upon verification of the complaint, the allegation was found to be genuine and an F.I.R. was registered vide R.C. Case No.6A/95 (D) on 10.04.1995 at 10:00 hours. A trap team was constituted including the complainant, verification officer, two independent witnesses and C.B.I. Officers. On the same day, a trap was laid. The trap team reached Munidih Sub Post Office. The complainant duly followed by the shadow witness went to the Munidih Sub Post Office. The complainant was informed that the accusedappellant has gone to deliver letters and will be back after about 1 1/2 hours. The members of the trap team waited there. At about 04:40 p.m., the accused-appellant returned. By that time, the sub post office was closed. The complainant followed by the shadow witness approached the accused and asked to give him the registered letter addressed to his sister. The accused-appellant demanded Rs.100/- for delivering the said letter as already told by him to the complainant. The complainant replied that as told by the accused-appellant, he has brought money with him with much difficulty. The accused-appellant commanded the complainant to give the same to him. The complainant took out the tainted notes from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same to the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant accepted the same with his right hand and counted the said money using both his hands and kept the said money in the left side pocket of his shirt. The accused-appellant, thereafter, brought out the registered letter from his bag and asked the complainant to sign the acknowledgment slip as well as the delivery slip and the complainant signed the same. Soon after the transaction was over, the complainant as well as the shadow witness signaled to members of the trap team at which the members of the trap team reached near the accused-appellant and challenged the accused-appellant of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant. The C.B.I. Officers namely T.J. Ghosh and A. K. Jha caught hold of the wrists of the right hand and left hand respectively of the accused-appellant. The shadow witness R.S. Singh recovered the money from the pocket of the accused-appellant. The numbers of the tainted notes were compared with the preliminary memorandum and the numbers tallied. A solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared in a glass tumbler and the accused-appellant was asked to dip his fingers in it. The colour of the solution in both the glass tumblers turned pink. The left pocket of the shirt of the accused-appellant was washed with the Sodium Carbonate solution. The Sodium Carbonate solution also turned pink. The sanction for prosecution of the accusedappellant was obtained and after completion of the investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.