SARDAR BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25-5-1998 passed in Special Case No.1/1989/ (Patna Vigilance P.S.Case No.2/1989), whereby and where- under the learned Special Judge Vigilance, Ranchi held the appellant guilty under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year on each count and has also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment, to further undergo SI for three months.

(2.) The factual matrix leading to this appeal are as follows: PW 1 Bhagwan Rai, a retired head constable of BMP, Bihar was awaiting final accounting of GPF contributed by him during his services. As stated, the complainant retired from Ranchi and his GPF accounts were pending in the office of Ranchi District Provident Fund office. It is further alleged that the appellant used to deal with the file of the complainant, who demanded bribe to prepare the correct account-sheet of the complainant. The complainant reported the matter to Vigilance Cell, Ranchi on which Patna Vigilance P.S.Case No.2/1989 was registered. The said complaint petition was forwarded to Deputy Superintendent Cabinet (Vigilance) Department, Ranchi for verification and needful. The matter was enquired upon by the Vigilance Sleuth Sri Garbret Hambram, SI on 6-1-89. In the afternoon, Mr. Hembram went along with the complainant Bhagwan Rai to the District Provident Fund Office where he was indicated that the appellant Sardar Birendra Singh sitting in the office, was the person who has demanded bribe. As per Sri Hembram, the complainant informed the appellant that he will manage the money on Tuesday, after which both of them went out and the appellant asked the complainant for Rs.1000/- to be paid by Tuesday and only after payment he would clear the GPF account.

(3.) The matter was reported to DSP vigilance, Ranchi in writing by Sri Hembram, vide Ext.6. It was further decided that a trap be laid to catch the appellant red-handed while accepting the bribe money, for which a team was instituted. According to the prosecution version, in the morning of 10th January, 89, the raiding team assembled in the office of the Dy. S. P. (Vigilance) situated at Nepal House, Ranchi, where the formalities of demonstration, use of Phenolphthalein on G.C. notes as well as preserving residues of finger wash on being turned pink were performed before the complainant and PW 2, Manohar Singh Biswa, PW 5 P. R. Das, PW 8 Garbret Hambram, PW 9, Maheshwar Prasad Mishra, Special Magistrate, Vigilance, PW 14, Bhagwan Singh and PW 16 J.D.H. Guriya, D.S.P.. The raiding team went along with the complainant, in the afternoon, to the district provident fund office, Ranchi. It is further stated that when the appellant met the complainant Bhagwan Rai in the office both of them came out to a tea stall situated outside the office premises. Three witnesses were present near the appellant and the complainant, when money was handed over to the appellant PW 1 handed over 5 tainted Rs.100/- currency notes to the appellants, who counted it and kept the same in his hand. Thereafter the complainant moved and when the appellant was returning to his office the raiding party confronted him with the allegation that he has received the bribe money . It is further stated that tainted 5 notes of Rs. 100/- were recovered from the right hand of the appellant by PWs 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 16. According to the prosecution version, during the seizure of the money, two independent witnesses Wakil Prasad Sharma, PW 11 and Mohan Lal, PW 12 were present, who were informed regarding the raid and their signatures were obtained on the seizure list. It is further stated that when the raiding team washed the hands of the appellant, finger wash became pink. The residue was preserved in two beakers and PW 11, an assistant of Forest Department, has supported the prosecution case while PW 12 has turned hostile.