VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 01.10.2010 passed in R.C. Case No. 16A/2009D by which petition for his discharge filed on behalf of the Petitioner was dismissed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum- Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad for the alleged offence under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The Petitioner was trapped by the C.B.I. sleuths after he had accepted bribe. The complainant Pritam Kumar had filed a petition before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad stating therein that he had applied for loan in the Bokaro Thermal Branch of the State Bank of India for purchasing a tractor and that the loan was sanctioned some two months ago. This fact was apprised to him by the Petitioner- Vijay Kumar, the Assistant Manager in the said Bank. Though he had completed all the formalities for loan and against that a sum of Rs. 3,13,000/- (three lakh thirteen thousand) was sanctioned but the draft of the loan amount was not being given to him by the Assistant Manager. He further narrated that when he visited the Bank on 27.10.2009, the Assistant Manager Vijay Kumar asked him to come to his Quarter No. ODT-3/1 situated in Bokaro Tharmal, Bokaro D.V.C. at about 7 p.m. carrying Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) in lieu of delivery of the loan amount but on the request and bargaining made by him. Assistant Manager Vijay Kumar agreed to accept only Rs. 8,000/- (Eight thousand). The informant expressed his disinclination to deliver bribe money to him in his petition and requested the S.P., C.B.I. to take legal action. On his written report a Trap Team was constituted consisting of officials of the C.B.I. and two independent witnesses. At about 19.30 hours on 28.10.2009 the informant Pritam Kumar accompanied by shadow witness Shri S.P. Mukherjee entered into the residence of the Petitioner Vijay Kumar on the given address and there held transaction of formal wishes and then Pritam Kumar explained that the person accompanied him (shadow witness) was his uncle working at Kargali C.C.I. and that he had given him Rs. 40,000/-(forty thousand) loan towards margin money to be deposited for the loan. He further explained that as he had No. faith on him, he accompanied to his place as he wanted to be assured about the transaction. On the hint given by the Petitioner Vijay Kumar, the informant asked the shadow witness to go out of the room and thereafter the door was closed from inside and upon being asked by the Petitioner-Vijay Kumar, the informant kept the bribe money to the tune of Rs. 8,000/-below the mattress spread on his bed and then the informant came out, gave prefixed signal and on receiving such signal the members of the Trap Team headed by Dy.S.P., S. Mallik entered into the room of the Petitioner along with the witnesses, challenged the Petitioner for having demanded and accepted bribe money of Rs. 8,000/- (Eight thousand) from the informant Shri Pritam Kumar. Both hands of the Petitioner were caught hold separately and he was declared arrested on 28.10.2009 at about 20 hours. Both his hands were washed in two different clean glasses in the solution of sodium carbonate but the milky colour did not change, which were sealed and marked materials Exts. (R & L) for identification. It was stated that on disclosure made by the accused Petitioner Vijay Kumar, tainted G.C. notes totaling Rs. 8,000/- (Eight thousand) were recovered from below the mattress of his bed in presence of the independent witness P. Mohan. The witness P. Mohan was further requested to compare the numbers and denomination of the recovered G.C. notes with the numbers and denomination of the G.C. notes as recorded in the Pre-Trap Memorandum which was in possession of another witness Shri S.P. Mukherjee. On compare both were found the same in to-to with the details given in the post trap memorandum duly signed by all the members of the Trap Team including the informant Pritam Kumar and the independent witnesses.

(3.) Learned Counsel submitted that the complaint made against the Petitioner by the informant was mainly because he had refused to fulfill the illegal interest of the complainant Pritam Kumar and when he failed in all his efforts in pressuring the Petitioner, he in connivance with the officials of the C.B.I. personnel implicated the Petitioner in a false trap case. It would be relevant to mention that both the hands of the Petitioner though were poured in the milky solution of sodium carbonate separately but its colour did not change into pink so as to infer that the Petitioner had touched the tainted notes. Nothing much less any incriminating material was recovered from the person or physical possession of the Petitioner. During course of investigation the Investigating Team had found that the Petitioner had refused to grant loan to the informant because of R.B.I./S.B.I. norms which put restrictions for grant of another loan to a person, who was defaulter. The petition preferred by the Petitioner under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected by the learned Special Judge, Dhanbad without giving any cogent reason and explaining as to how he found prima facie case against him. The fact was ignored that some recovery of certain amount from the mattress of a person did not render him liable that he accepted bribe amount.