BRIJ BHUSHAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6-10-1997 passed by the Special Judge (C.B.I.), Dhanbad in R. C. Case No. 5/86; whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under each count and has further been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of such payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. However, sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Shankar Bhutan, a Miner Loader, Ena Colliery, B.C.C.L. Area VIII, Dhanbad lodged a complaint before the C.B.I. Dhanbad alleging therein that on 25-1-1986 he was to join his duty but as his wife was ill, he went to join on 28-1-1986 but he was not allowed to join and was asked by the Personnel Officer to produce a certificate about sickness of his wife. Thereafter, the complainant met the appellant, who was Senior Dresser, and requested him for the said sickness certificate but the appellant demanded Rs. 50/- for issuing of such certificate. The complainant was not willing to pay bribe of Rs, 50/- to. the appellant, therefore, he made complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. in writing requesting to take necessary action against the appellant. The allegations in the written complaint submitted by the complainant was verified and after its confirmation, the F.I.R. was registered. Thereafter in order to catch hold of the appellant the C.B.I. arranged a trap. After observing the pre-trap observation, Rs. 50/- brought by the complainant was tainted with Phenolphthalein Powder in presence of witnesses and a preliminary memo was prepared, which was signed by the independent witnesses, complainant and all other members. When the raiding party reached Bhuli Township Dispensary, the complainant, entered into the dressing room of the dispensary where the appellant was sitting. The appellant, thereafter, enquired from the complainant as to whether he has brought the money as demanded earlier for issuing the sickness certificate and when the complainant told him that yes, he has brought the money, then the appellant asked for the same. Thereafter complainant, Shankar Bhuian took out the tainted money of Rs. 50/- and handed over to the appellant who accepted the same and started counting the currency notes. In course of counting, he suspected and wanted to confirm as to whether G. C. notes were treated with any sort of powder or not, he poured some water over the tainted G. C. note but when he did not (get) any result, kept the G. C. notes in the right pocket of his trouser. At that moment the shadow witness Hari Pada Banerjee signalled, at which Lakhi Prasad, Inspector, followed by other members of the raiding party entered into the dressing room and after disclosing his identity, he challenged the appellant saying that he had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 50/- from the complainant for giving sickness certificate. The appellant began to sweat profusely and became extremely nervous and then he admitted the fact that he had demanded and accepted the amount of Rs. 50/- from the complainant as bribe. Thereafter, the G. C. notes of Rs. 50/- were recovered from the pocket of his trouser. The number of which tallied with the number and denomination mentioned in the preliminary memo. Those tainted G. C. notes were kept in a sealed envelope on which all the members of the raiding party, complainant and independent witnesses put their signatures. Thereafter, both the hands of the appellant and also his trouser from which G. C. notes were recovered, were got washed in three separate solutions of sodium carbonate and on receiving the positive result, the solutions of sodium carbonate were sealed in three separate bottles on which also the witnesses put their signatures. Trousers were also sealed in big envelope on which also witnesses put their signatures. The investigation was taken, statements of the witnesses were recorded, seizure memoes were prepared and material exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta and thereafter on receiving the opinion of the expert and on receiving the sanction order for prosecution, the chargesheet was submitted against the appellant.

(3.) In order to establish the charges against the appellant, all together 16 witness were examined on behalf of the prosecution and several documents were adduced in evidence which were marked as Ext.