BHUBNESHWAR JHA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2005 passed in R.C. Case No. 21(A)/94 (R) by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- in case of default further to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. THE appellant is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 6,000/- in case of default further to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that the complainant Faiyaz Bihari had deposited Bank Guarantee of one Lakh rupees alongwith an application on 19.9.1994 for wholesale Trade of Coal in the C.C.L. and requested Sri Bhubneshwar Jha, dealing assistant to process his application and the said dealing assistant asked him to come after 10 to 12 days. It is further alleged that on 3.10.1994 the complainant met with Bhubneshwar Jha in his office and asked him about his work, then he told the complainant that his application will be sent to Legal Section of C.C.L. as per the procedure of C.C.L. and the Bank Guarantee will be verified from the Bank and thereafter, D.O. will be issued from the Sales Department. THE accused appellant also asked the complainant to pay Rs. 200/- (two hundred) for processing. THE complainant asked the accused-appellant to do his work without taking any money but he told that without taking money he will not process his paper. THE complainant did not want to give bribe to Bhubneshwar Jha, so he made a complaint to the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi.

(3.) THE investigation was taken, statements of the witnesses were recorded, seizure memos were prepared and material exhibits were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta and thereafter, on receiving the opinion of the expert and on receiving the sanction order for prosecution, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. THE defence of the accused is total denial of the charges and further defence is that the complainant had taken loan from the accused and when he returned the loan amount, he has been falsely implicated in this case.