BALENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2006, passed by the IXth Additional Judicial Commissioner- cum- Special Judge(Vigilance) at Ranchi, in Spl. Case No.04 of 1997, arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 1997, whereby he has convicted the appellant under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years together with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo a further period of three months imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that on the written report of Sri Ashok Kumar Sinha, the then Superintendent of Police Vigilance wherein he has stated that a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Vigilance Bureau of Cabinet Vigilance, Bihar and it was found that Balendra Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police who was posted as Enforcement Officer at Jamshedpur, seized Truck No.BR-16B-7689 on 6.12.94 and it was kept in Sakchi Police Station. After presenting tax token No.A-299573 valid up to 22.12.94, the said truck was released by the Enforcement Officer and release order was signed by him on 6.12.94. From perusal of the release order, it was found that on the said day some facts were concealed by mentioning some other date in the station diary entry No. 323 of Sakchi P.S. which reveals that truck No. BR-16B-7689 was released from the said police station on 7.12.1994. This fact shows that Balendra Singh illegally seized that truck and to conceal his criminal act, release order was prepared and entry was made in the police station. On the basis of the aforesaid Written report a formal F.I.R. has been drawn and this case has been registered against the accused appellant.

(3.) In the said F.I.R. a number of allegations made against the appellant but the trial court considering the evidence of the witnesses and materials on records and after considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, convicted the present appellant only under Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act holding that the prosecution succeeded to establish that accused obtained Rs.2500/- from Krishna Yadav, owner of the truck No. BR-16B-7689 by corrupt or illegal means by abusing his position as a public servant and gave him opportunity to deposit up to date tax while aforesaid truck was being plied without paying road tax, and accused appellant being public servant committed criminal misconduct defined under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act and sentenced him as stated above and acquitted him from all other charges framed against him.