SRIKANT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/03/2012, whereby the appellant, having been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further to undergo R.I. for two and half years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with default clause, to undergo S.I. for one year on account of nonpayment of the fine amount.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Kiran Jha, the mother of the complainant Saurabh Kumar Jha (PW8), was running a lady beauty parlor in the name of M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor. She was being assisted by her son Saurabh Kumar Jha in running the said Beauty Parlor. On account of nonpayment of the service tax, notices to show cause (Ext. 44/1) were issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax and Central Excise, Government of Indian, Ranchi, asking it to deposit the amount payable towards service tax and to furnish monthly return in FormNo. ST3 and at the same time the Firm was called upon to show cause as to why not penalty be imposed. In compliance of the said notices, service tax return for the period from 16/08/2002 to September, 2002, October, 2002 to March 2003 and April 2003 to September 2003, were filed on 29/01/2004. Since the matter relating to the payment of the penalty had still not been settled, the complainant Saurabh Kumar Jha visited the Office of the Commissioner, Custom and Central Excise, Ranchi on 04/02/2004, where he made a contact with this appellant posted at the time as Superintendent, Central Excise. He had earlier been posted as Inspector, Central Excise. He was dealing with the concern file and as such, Saurabh Kumar Jha requested him to help him out in settling the matter. Upon it, the appellant demanded Rs. 2,000/ as bribe to settle the matter. When such demand was made, Saurabh Kumar Jha the complainant (PW8) expressed his inability to meet the demand. On the next day, the complainant came to the office of the S.P., CBI, Ranchi, wherein he submitted a written report (Ext12) to the S.P., CBI. On receiving such written report, S.P., CBI, directed Mukesh Verma (PW12), SubInspector of CBI, to make verification of the allegation. On making verification, finding the allegation to be true, he submitted its report (Ext.18). Thereupon, first information report (Ext.16) was drawn and was registered as RC/05 (A)/2004 (R) under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Thereupon, S.P., CBI, constituted a team consisting of S.K. Sinha (PW10), Vikash Gupta (PW13), both Inspectors of CBI, Mukesh Verma (PW12) SubInspector of CBI, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Pankaj Kumar, both Constables of CBI, lead by Sri S.N.Choudhary (PW11) for laying trap. Two independent witnesses, one Amitava Sen, Superintending Engineer, (E & M) Vigilance, CCL, Ranchi (PW5) and Pratap Chandra Pattanaik, Sr. Manager, P.N.B, Zonal Office, Ranchi (PW7), were asked by the CBI Officials to take part in the trap. Thereafter, a pretrap exercises were undertaken, wherein currency notesworth Rs. 2000/ of the denomination of Rs. 500/ each, produced by the complainant (PW8) were treated with the Phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant with a instruction to him to give it on demand being made by the appellant. The witness Amitava Sen (PW5) was asked to be there alongwith the complainant. On completion of the pre trap exercises, pretrap memorandum(Ext.19) was prepared. Thereafter, the trap team left the office of the CBI and proceeded to the office of the appellant situated at 6th Floor of Mahavir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, where they reached at about 1.20 p.m. On 05/02/2004. The members of the raiding party took their suitable positions in near vicinity of the office. The complainant accompanied with Amitava Sen came to the office of the appellant where the appellant was found sitting alone. On finding the complainant there, the appellant asked the complainant to come outside the office for having chat. They came out of the room of his office and stopped just near the exit door where PW5 Amitava Sen also came there. The appellant asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the money. When the complainant replied in affirmative, the appellant extended his right hand towards complainant and asked him to pay the money. The complainant took out the money from his pocket and put it on the hand of the appellant. Having received the money, the appellant told the complainant that now his work would be done. Meanwhile, pre fixed signal was given by the complainant. On getting signal, the Members of the raiding party reached over there and then Inspector S.N.Choudhary (PW11) challenged the appellant. On being challenged, the appellant immediately threw the money on the ground. The inspector Vikash Gupta (PW13) And Mukesh Verma (PW12) caught hold of the right hand of the appellant. Meanwhile, P.C.Pattanaik (PW7) picked up the GC notes from the ground and got the numbers of it tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pretrap memo, which was found to be the same. The said currencynotes (Ext. VV/3) were put in envelop which was sealed and over it members of the raiding party put their signature. Meanwhile, right hand wash of the appellant was taken, which on treatment got pink. Upon all the formalities being completed, post trap memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, the certain documents on being seized, recovery memorandum (Ext. 20) was prepared.

(3.) On completion of investigation and on procuring order sanctioning prosecution (Ext.1), charge sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant.