KAMAL KISHORE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Kamal Kishore Prasad stands convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 2000.00 , in default of payment of the said fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months respectively , by the 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner -cum -Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Sessions Code No. 2 of 1984.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was employed as Accountant in Bihar State Electricity Board. Ranchi on 27.11.1984. During this period, one Md. Shamim Ahmad had performed some work as contractor in connection with rural electrification. As the work allotted to this contractor could not be completed in stipulated period it resulted in withholding of his payments. As per prosecution case, Md. Shamim Ahmad applied for extension of time and the Executive Engineer of Bihar State Electricity Board extended the period after which he applied for payment of due bills. The appellant as the Accountant of the office concerned was delaying passing of the bills and demanded Rs. 100.00 by way of bribe for processing the same. The matter was reported to the Office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cabinet, Vigilance. Ranchi in writing and the matter was further enquired by P.W. 2 Mahadeo Ghosh. When the Department got satisfied, finally a raid was organized to trap the appellant at the time of accepting the bribe.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the defence taken by the appellant. It is also asserted that the demand of money was not proved and there was no occasion for demanding the money for passing of any bill. It is also asserted that the learned trial Court has not scrutinized properly the receipt issued for accepting the Chanda by the appellant brought on record by the defence. It has also been asserted that complainant Md. Shamim Ahmad as P.W. 7 has failed to disclose the number of currency notes and the amount of bill pending at that time before the trial Court. It was surprising that even the date of occurrence could be disclosed. Learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the circumstances in which the appellant has been trapped further creates doubt where P.W. 4 and P.W. 8 contradicted each other on material points. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and the seizure of the tainted money itself become doubtful. My attention was drawn towards the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 supporting the defence taken by the appellant. In the alternative, learned Counsel for the appellant pleaded that the appellant has suffered a lot, having faced rigours of trial right from November 1984 and has lost his job as well as now aged about 75 years, therefore, a lenient view may be taken.