SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE Vs. BALMIKI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of acquittal dated 04.10.1999 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. No. 18 of 1992 whereby the Respondents are acquitted from the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) and 12 of the P.C. Act and 120 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case, in nut shell, is that complainant-informant Abhijit Kumar (P.W.8) was the employee of one Sudhir Kumar Mishra who had been allotted telephone no. 5405. It was disconnected by the telephone department, Dhanbad for non-payment of the dues. When the said complainant- informant went to the telephone office to deposit the dues in the name of Sudhir Kumar Mishra on 16.12.92, accused Balmiki Singh demanded Rs. 500/- from him for restoration of connection of the said telephone to his employer as well as for not allowing any further problems and complications to arise in connection therewith in future. Then the said complainant lodged his complaint petition dated 16.12.92 (Ext. 9) with the S.P. C.B.I., Dhanbad for necessary action against accused Balmiki Singh which resulted in verification of his allegations, laying of a trap proceeding and apprehension of the said accused red handed while demanding and accepting Rs. 500/- as bribe from the above complainant-informant on the very same day.

(2.) After investigation the I.O. Has submitted the charge against three other accused namely Subhash Kumar, Rajendra Prasad Ojha and Ragho Bhagat who are respondent nos. 2 to 4 in the present appeal. It is stated instead of bringing the defects in the said Closure Advise Note to the notice of the higher authorities, they have processed the steps which resulted into permanent closure of the telephone connection of Telephone no. DNB 5405 on 4.11.92.

(3.) The defence of the accused Balmiki Singh is that he has been falsely implicated as there was no person named Sudhir Kumar Mishra. The C.B.I. people have fabricated fictitious persons and filed this false case by setting of and after making collusion with the complainant-informant Abhijit Kumar. Accused appellant have not demanded any money from Abhijit Kumar as a bribe. The telephone number in question i.e. 5405 was not recorded in the name of said Sudhir Kumar Mishra nor in the name of the complainant-informant Abhijit Kumar. Therefore, there is no question of demanding any money from the complainant as alleged.