A.K. BISWAS Vs. A.K. BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted for the offence under Section under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 besides Section 161 of the Indian penal Code, by the 7th Addl. Sessions Judge cum Special Judge (Vigilance) Ranchi, in Spl. Case No. 11 of 1988 / Vig. Case No. 33 of 1988 and accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees two thousand for offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and separately sentenced for the same period besides fine of rupees three thousand imposed on him for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 though no separate sentence was passed under Section 161 IPC.

(2.) THE facts of the case, stated briefly, is that the complainant Shiv Nath Prasad (PW7) had vide an agreement undertook to supply gunny bags to the Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation, at its factory at Daltonganj. The appellant at that time was the Project Manager of the factory. The complainant had supplied 15,000 gunny bags but the appellant with alleged mala fide intention, rejected two thousand gunny bags out of the supplied quantity thereby passing the bill for payment to the limited extent of Rs. 22,100/ - in stead of the full amount of the bill submitted by the complainant On request by the complainant to accept the two thousand bags and release payment for the same, the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ -. The complainant lodged a complaint before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. The complaint was inquired into by SI Lakshmi Narain Singh (PW2) of the vigilance department who in course of inquiry, accompanied the complainant to a hotel at Ranchi where in his presence, the accused had received Rs. 500/ - from the complainant and on the basis of the report submitted by PW2, a trap was laid, the details whereof were pre - rehearsed with the complainant and the decoy witnesses. The currency notes, each of Rs. 100/ - denomination amounting to Rs. 500/ -, were handed over to the complainant after noting the numbers in a pre -trap memorandum and spraying them with chemical. Thereafter, the complainant met the appellant and on the alleged demand made by the appellant, the complainant gave Rs. 5,00/ - On a signal made by the complainant, the decoy witnesses promptly came and the stained currency notes of rupees five hundred were recovered from the trouser pocket of the appellant. Thereafter, the numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the earlier pre -trap memorandum and the hands and fingers of the appellant was tested chemically. On the basis of the confirmation made by the chemical test, as also the statement of witnesses that the appellant had received the money by way of illegal gratification, he was promptly arrested and thereafter the instant case was registered against the appellant.

(3.) THE appellant has assailed the impugned order of conviction and sentence on several grounds, prominent amongst which is the ground that the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind before grant of sanction for prosecution of the appellant for the offence he was charged with. Elaborating his arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that according to the prosecution case, complaint to the vigilance department was made by the complainant on 16.7.1998. The allegation of the complainant was subjected to verification by the PW2 who submitted his report on 18.7.1998 and the case was registered on 19.7.1998. The trap was laid on 22.7.1988. However, FIR was received in court on 23.7.1988 after delay of about 4 days from the date of registration of the case. The case was initially registered for offence under Section 161 IPC only. Later on, the investigating officer had suo motu added Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After prolonged period of investigation, sanction was purportedly obtained from the Chairman of the Corporation as being the competent authority, on 15.3.1989 and charge sheet was submitted against the appellant followed by taking of cognizance of the offence under Sections 7, 13(2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Learned Counsel explains further that on the alleged date of occurrence, it was the previous Act, namely the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947, which was in force and, whereas sanction for prosecution of the appellant was given for offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.