RAM NANDAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.6.2002 passed by Shri Shri D.K. Lal, 7th Additional Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, Vigilance Department, Ranchi in Special Case No. 16 of 1988 by which judgment learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty Under Section 7/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 2 years under each count & both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the basis of the information given by Runja Oraon on 23.8.1988 to Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ranchi stating therein that they have provided pump set from Brombay Lamps on subsidized rate under the government scheme but it is alleged that the manager of the Lamps, Ram Nandan Pandey was demanding Rs. 50/ - as freight charge on each machine and Rs. 50/ - as charge on the ground of enhanced price, total Rs. 100/ - from each person which has been provided with a pump set. Thereafter, S.I. Vigilance, Garbet Hembrom was sent to verify the allegation and the allegation was found to be true. Then the raid cum trap was organized by the officer and staff of Vigilance on 31.8.1988. It is alleged that the informant went to the office of the accused on that day who demanded Rs. 100/ - then the informant paid Rs. 100/ - as 5 Currency notes of 20 denomination each of which numbers were noted in the G.C. notes memorandum and treated with phenolphathalin powder. Subsequently the said currency note was recovered from the possession of the accused in his presence and independent witnesses and seizure list was prepared and after chemical test of the accused hands he was remanded to the jail custody on the basis of which Vigilance P.S. case No. 41/1988 was registered.

(3.) ON the other hand learned Counsel for the state has submitted that the claim of the appellant that he had accepted the money for insurance of the Pump set is not correct since the circular came after the realization of the money by the accused and moreover, if it was for insurance, then he should have granted some receipts to each of the beneficiaries. As such the appellant has rightly been convicted and the judgment requires no interference of this Court.