SUBHASH CHANDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.06.2001 and 12.06.2001 respectively, passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 10/1989 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under section 7 and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further fine of Rs. 2,000/ - under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default of payment of aforesaid fine, further imprisonment of three months R.I. and the sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently. The Prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Deep Chand Jain has raised allegation against the appellant that he demanded Rs. 1,000/ - for appointment of Nazir in an Execution Case No. 203/1981 in which said complainant was making Pairvi on behalf of Smt. Alka Devi Jain who happens to be sister of said Deep Chand Jain. The appellant then was posted as a Bench Clerk in the office of the learned Munsif at Ranchi.

(2.) ON 02.02.1989, the complainant appeared in the office of the Vigilance with five G.C. Notes of denominations of Rs. 20/ - each, whereafter the memorandum of aforesaid notes was prepared and signed by the witnesses. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied on those G.C. Notes and the same were kept in envelope and handed over to the complainant with a direction that he would give those notes on demand to the appellant. On the very same day, a raiding party consisting of 17 persons was organised at the instance of S.P. Vigilance. The Sub Inspector of Vigilance namely G. Hembram was directed to remain as a shadow witness with the complainant so that he may give signal after transaction of money takes place between the complainant and the appellant.

(3.) AFTER concluding investigation, chargesheet against the appellant was filed and the trial proceeded after framing of the charge under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.