Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 855 (PAT)

Sheo Kumar Srivastava v. State Of Bihar

2001-09-11

P.N.YADAV

body2001
Judgment P.N.YADAV, J. 1. The appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under the second count, both the substantive sentences, having been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the first information report and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was, in brief, as follows : The appellant was a public servant working as Head Assistant in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Boring Canal Road, Patna during the relevant period of time. The complainant Braj Bihari Mishra (PW 14) was an unemployed youth. As he did not get employment he decided to become a contractor. He approached the appellant for getting his name registered as a contractor. The appellant, who dealt with the matter regarding registration of such contractor asked him to produce certain papers and certificates in token of deposit of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by him in the Bank. He also demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 900/- for getting his work done. PW 14 was not ready and willing to make payment of illegal gratification and as such he lodged a complaint (Ext. 7) with the DIG, Vigilance, Patna on 18.4.1985. The DIG on the same day appointed and directed Zahir Ahmad. Inspector Vigilance (PW 6) to verify the allegation levelled by PW 14 against the appellant. Thereafter on 18.4.1985 itself PW 6 along with PW 14 went to the office of the appellant. PW 14 talked to the appellant in connection with his registration as a contractor. The appellant handed over a form of registration for a sum of Rs. 10/- to PW 14 and he asked him to pay the demanded money worth Rs. 900/-as consideration for getting his name registered as contractor in presence of PW 6. Thereafter on the same day PW 6 submitted his verification report (Ext. 1). The appellant handed over a form of registration for a sum of Rs. 10/- to PW 14 and he asked him to pay the demanded money worth Rs. 900/-as consideration for getting his name registered as contractor in presence of PW 6. Thereafter on the same day PW 6 submitted his verification report (Ext. 1). On the basis of the complaint of PW 14 and report of PW 6 the case was registered. 3. On the next day i.e. on 19.4.1985 in accordance with the direction of the DIG, Vigilance a raiding party headed by Arvind Prasad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW 7) with Baidehi Sharan Mishra,. Special Magistrate (PW 10), Ram Dayal Singh (PW 1), Md. Sarwar Khan (PW 2), Md. Nizam (PW 3), Ram Kumar Prasad (PW 4), Jang Bahadur Sao (PW 5), Zahir Ahmad (PW6), Pramod Kumar Singh (PW 8), Lal Bahadur Singh (PW 9). Sharda Nand Singh (PW 11) as its members was organised to lay a trap to catch hold of the appellant red handed while accepting illegal gratification. 4. As per instruction the complainant (PW 14), Zahir Ahmad (PW 6) on 19.4.1985 at about 11.15 AM appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance (PW 7) in his office where the Special Magistrate (PW 10) was also present and he produced a sum Rs. 900/- consisting of nine GC notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-each. PW 7 prepared a memorandum (Ext. 2) of the currency notes with their numbers noted thereon and he returned the currency notes to the complainant (PW 14) and directed him to hand over the same to the appellant only on demand. The verifier Zahir Ahmad was instructed to remain present with PW 14 and see the transaction and to give signal by wiping his face with handkerchief after the appellant accepted the bribe money. Thereafter the trap party swung into action and proceeded to the office of the appellant, PW 14 and PW 6 leaving behind the members of raiding party went ahead and they entered into the office of the appellant. The other members of the raiding party including the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Special Magistrate followed PWs 6 and 14 and they took their position in the vicinity of the office of the appellant. The other members of the raiding party including the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Special Magistrate followed PWs 6 and 14 and they took their position in the vicinity of the office of the appellant. The appellant after talking to PW 14 and getting some papers prepared asked him to pay the demanded money worth Rs. 900/- whereafter PW 14 handed over the aforesaid GC notes to the appellant. Taking the money and putting the same in the pocket of his shirt, the appellant went to the Chamber of Pramod Ranjan Shrivastava (PW 12), the Technical Advisor. 5. Soon after acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant PW 6 flashed the pre-arranged signal. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW 7) and the Special Magistrate (PW 10) as well as other members of the raiding party rushed to the scene of incident. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate challenged the appellant saying that he had accepted illegal gratification for a sum of Rs. 900/-form the complainant (PW 14) and kept the same in the pocket of his shirt. The appellant was perplexed and he could not speak anything. He was caught hold of and on search of his person the aforesaid tainted GC notes of Rs. 900/- were recovered and seized form the upper pocket of his shirt and on comparison the numbers of those notes tallied with the numbers of the GC notes mentioned in the memorandum, while certain other papers and cash were also recovered from the pockets of his full pant and the search list (Ext. 5) was prepared in the presence of PW 12 Pramod Ranjan Shrivastava and PW 15 Jawed Ahmad and the appellant was arrested and forwarded to the Court. 6. The investigation was taken up by PW 17 Mukti Lal Mishra and later on by PW 10 Padam Kumar Singh. Sanction for prosecution of the appellant was accorded by PW 13 A.K. Lal, Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional Secretary-cum-Additional Commissioner, Rural Development Department. Government of Bihar, Patna. The order according sanction for prosecution is (Ext. 6). After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and finally the trial commenced. 7. The appellant did not enter into defence. Sanction for prosecution of the appellant was accorded by PW 13 A.K. Lal, Engineer-in-chief-cum-Additional Secretary-cum-Additional Commissioner, Rural Development Department. Government of Bihar, Patna. The order according sanction for prosecution is (Ext. 6). After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted and finally the trial commenced. 7. The appellant did not enter into defence. However, from the trend of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313, Cr PC the defence seemed to be that he never demanded or accepted illegal gratification from the complainant nor was any bribe money recovered and seized from his possession. It was pleaded that at about 3.30. P.M. on the date of the alleged occurrence he after hanging his shirt on his chair went to attend to natures call and after he returned he put on his shirt and went to the Chamber of the Technical Advisor and when he after having some discussion with him was returning to his seat in his officer, the Vigilance sleuth pushed him back in the chamber of PW 12 and one of the members of the trap party shouted that money was handed over to him and the members of the raiding party kept the money on the table and he had been falsely implicated in the instant case. 8. Quite a large number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant. The learned Special Judge Vigilance after taking the facts, circumstances and evidence brought on records into account found and held the appellant guilty and he convicted and sentenced him as stated above, vide the impugned judgment and order. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence recorded against him, the appellant preferred the instant appeal. He assailed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence by contending that as the complainant did not support the case and he was declared hostile no conviction could have been based on the evidence of other witnesses; that no phenolphthale in powder was used for treating the marked currency notes and hence the prosecution case must be said to be not free from doubt and that the sanctioning authority accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant without applying its judicial mind to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. 10. 10. The points for consideration are whether the appellant was during the relevant period of time a public servant and whether he demanded and accepted illegal gratification in the capacity of public servant as such from the complainant for getting him registered as a contractor. 11. The appellant was working as Head Assistant in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation. Boring Canal Road, Patna. The evidence of the Technical Advisor (PW 12) and the Superintending Engineer (PW 13) abundantly established that the appellant was a public servant working as Head Assistant. Moreover the factum regarding the appellant being a public servant was not disputed and denied. Accordingly, it is to be held that the appellant was a public servant during the relevant period of time. 12. The next point for consideration is whether the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant (PW 14) as consideration for getting him registered unemployed youth and as he did not get any job, he decided to become a contractor and he approached the appellant for getting his name registered as a contractor in the officer of the Superintending Engineer but to his utter dismay and surprise the appellant demanded of him an illegal gratification of a sum of Its. 900/- for getting his work done and as he was not ready and willing to pay the bribe, he submitted a petition of complaint (Ext. 7) to the DTG, Vigilance, Patna on 18.4.1985 and the latter sent PW 6 to verify the allegation levelled against the appellant by PW 14 and that he along with PW 6 on the same day i.e. on 18.4.1985 went to the office of the appellant and they happened to see him at a betel stall PW 14 asked the appellant to reduce the amount of demanded money. He denied to have taken the form of registration for a sum of Rs. 10/- at the time of verification and also to have identified the appellant in the Court and hence the prosecution drew his attention to his previous statement recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. However the witness admitted that the name of the Head Assistant, who had demanded illegal gratification from him was Sheo Kumar Shrivastava who is none but the appellant. PW 14 admitted that the aforesaid Head Assistant Sheo Kumar Shrivastava calledupon him to pay the aforesaid amountof Rs. However the witness admitted that the name of the Head Assistant, who had demanded illegal gratification from him was Sheo Kumar Shrivastava who is none but the appellant. PW 14 admitted that the aforesaid Head Assistant Sheo Kumar Shrivastava calledupon him to pay the aforesaid amountof Rs. 900/- to him at about 11.0. A.M. on 19.4.1985 and also to bring the required papers with him. He further stated that at about 10.11. A.M. on 19.4.1985 he went to the Vigilance office where the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 7), and the Magistrate (PW 10) were present and they talked to him whereafter he produced the GC notes worth Rs. 900/- and PW 7 prepared a memorandum of currency notes (Ext. 2) and returned the said currency notes to him with a direction to give the same to the appellant only on demand. PW 14 also recorded endorsement with his signature (Ext. 5/7) on Ext. 2. He further stated that he as well as PW 6 along with the trap party headed by PW 7 proceeded on a trekker for the office of the appellant, he and PW 6 got off from the vehicle at some distance from the office and they leaving behind the members of the trap party went ahead and the members of the raiding party followed them, PWs 14 and 6 entered into the office of the appellant. The appellant got an application written by PW 14 and thereafter he demanded of him the money and then he handed over the marked currency notes to him. PW 14 added that the appellant accepted the money. He identified the registration form and other papers which were prepared and filed on his behalf. PW 14 made a false statement that he remained sitting in the office of the appellant who after accepting the money went out of his office and after a short while he learnt that the Head Assistant who had taken the bribe money was arrested by the Vigilance sleuth while the reality was that the appellant (Head Assistant) was caught hold of by the Vigilance Officials and on search of his person the tainted currency notes referred to above, were recovered and seized from his possession and search-cum-seizure list (Ext. 4) was prepared in presence of independent witnesses (PWs 12 and 15) as well as the Magistrate PW 10. 4) was prepared in presence of independent witnesses (PWs 12 and 15) as well as the Magistrate PW 10. The statement of PW 14 that the appellant was not the person who demanded and accepted the bribe money from him and he was not caught hold of red handed nor the bribe money was recovered and seized from his possession cannot be accepted nor can on that score alone the appellant be said to be entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal for, there is abundance of other materials and evidence to be discussed hereinafter to bring home - the charges levelled against the appellant. Even the complainant PW 14 stated that the Head Assistant Sheo Kumar Shrivastava demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 900/- from him. He appeared to have made false statement with a view to saving the appellant that the appellant who was standing in the dock was not the Head Assistant Sheo Kumar Shrivastava who had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. 13. The watcher (PW 6) stated that he in accordance with the direction of the DIG Vigilance along with PW 14 on 18.4.1985 went to the office of the appellant to verify the allegation levelled against the appellant by PW 14 and in his presence the appellant asked the complainant (PW 14) to pay to him the bribe money of Rs. 900/-and thereafter he submitted his verification report (Ext. 1) on the same day. After receipt of verification report the DIG Vigilance directed laying trap on the appellant to catch hold of him red handed while accepting bribe by a raiding party headed by the Deputy superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW 7) and the trap party was constituted on 19.4.1985. PWs 6, 7 and 10 consistently stated that as per instruction PWs 6 and 14 at about 11.00 a.m. on 19.4.1985 appeared before PWs 7 and 10 in the office of the Vigilance Department where PW 14 produced nine GC notes of denomination or Rs. 100/- each and PW 7 prepared the memorandum (Ext. 2) with the numbers of the currency notes noted thereon. PW 10 recorded his endorsement with signature (Ext. 5/1) on the memorandum. 100/- each and PW 7 prepared the memorandum (Ext. 2) with the numbers of the currency notes noted thereon. PW 10 recorded his endorsement with signature (Ext. 5/1) on the memorandum. It is in the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 10 that PW 7 returned the marked currency notes to PW 14 with a direction to him to hand over the said GC notes to the appellant only on demand and PW 6 was instructed to watch transaction of giving and taking of money and to give signal by wiping his face with handkerchief after the appellant accepted the bribe money and thereafter the trap party proceeded for the office of the appellant and PWs 6 and 14 were directed to go to the appellant ahead of the trap party and accordingly PWs 6 and 14 went to the office of the appellant who got some papers prepared and asked the complainant (PW 14) to pay the demanded money worth Rs.900/- and thereafter PW 14 handed over the marked currency notes to the appellant who taking the bribe money went to the office Chamber of PW 12 and in the mean while PW 6 flashed the prearranged signal whereafter PWs 7 and 10 as well as other members of the raiding party who had taken their position in the vicinity of the appellants office rushed to the scene of occurrence i.e. the Chamber of PW 12 and they caught hold of the appellant and PWs 7 and 10 after disclosing their identity challenged the appellant saying that he had accepted bribe money worth Rs. 900/- whereafter he was at his wits end, wonderstruck and speechless. PWs 6, 7, and 10 added that PW 7 in presence of PWs 12 and 15 who was called from a nearby garage searched the person of the appellant in course of which tainted currency notes worth Rs. 900/- were recovered and seized from the upper pocket of his shirt and certain papers including application, State Bank Certificate etc. of the appellant were recovered from his hand while a sum of Rs. 300/- and another sum of Rs. 700/- were recovered from the right and the left pockets of his pant and thereafter PW 7 prepared the search list (Ext. 4) in presence of witnesses referred to above. It is in there evidence that before the appellant was searched, the memorandum (Ext. 300/- and another sum of Rs. 700/- were recovered from the right and the left pockets of his pant and thereafter PW 7 prepared the search list (Ext. 4) in presence of witnesses referred to above. It is in there evidence that before the appellant was searched, the memorandum (Ext. 2) was shown to PW 12 and PW 15 who put their signatures with endorsements (Exts 5/5 and 5/8) on Ext. 2. The witnesses further said that on comparison the numbers of the currency notes recovered and seized from the possession of the appellant tallied with the numbers of GC notes mentioned in the memorandum (Ext. 2) and that proved that the complainant (PW 14) paid to the appellant those very currency notes which he had already shown to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate and the numbers of which were recorded on the memorandum. It is in their evidence that search list (Ext. 4) was prepared in their presence and a copy of the same was supplied to the appellant who put his signature with endorsement (Ect 5) in token of receipt of the same. PWs 10, 12 and 15 put their signatures with endorsements (Exts 5/3, 5/5 and 5/9 respectively) on search list. PWs 10 and 12 also put their signatures on application etc. of PW 14 recovered and seized from the hand of the appellant. 14. PW 12 stated that he was Technical Advisor to the Superintending Engineer and the appellant was the Head Assistant in his office. He further stated that at about 3-3.30 P.M. on 19.4.1985 the appellant went to his Chamber and put up the application of PW 14 and he put his signature with endorsement (Ext. 5/4) thereon and returned the same to him and in the meanwhile the officials of the Vigilance Department reached there and the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate after disclosing their identity challenged the appellant saying that he had accepted illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 900/- PW 12 also stated that PW 15 was called and they were shown memorandum on which they recorded their endorsements with signatures (Exts. 5/5 and 5/8). PW 12 added that the Deputy Superintendent of Police searched the person of the appellant in course of which currency notes worth Rs. 900/- PW 12 also stated that PW 15 was called and they were shown memorandum on which they recorded their endorsements with signatures (Exts. 5/5 and 5/8). PW 12 added that the Deputy Superintendent of Police searched the person of the appellant in course of which currency notes worth Rs. 900/-were recovered and seized from his possession and on comparison their numbers tallied with the numbers of the currency notes in the memorandum. PW 12 put his signature and endorsement (Exts. 5/6) on the search list (Ext. 2) prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 7). PW 15 stated that he was called and he went to the office of the Superintending Engineer where several officials of the Vigilance department were present and memorandum was shown to him of which he put his signature with endorsement (Exts. 5/8). He did not support the factum of search and recovery and seizure of bribe money from the possession of the appellant. However, he admitted his signature and endorsement (Exts. 5/9) on search list. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. His attention was drawn to his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr PC and he was contradicted by the IO (PW 17). He appears to have turned hostile towards the truth. 15. PWs 1 and 9 who were also members of the raiding party testified to the laying of trap on the appellant, his arrest, search of his person and recovery and seizure of tainted currency notes worth Rs. 900/- from the pocket of his shirt and preparation of search-cum-seizuer list by PW 7 in presence of the Magistrate and other witnesses referred to above. 16. The evidence of PWs 1, 6, 7, 9 and 10 was consistent and corroborative, free from inherent taint and infirmity. They were cross examined at length but nothing was elicited in their cross examination to demolish their veracity. It is true that they were members of the trap party and they may be interested in the outcome of their trap laid on the delinquent public servant and PW 7 also admitted that whenever trap was laid, he made every endeavour to bring it to a logical conclusion and success but that is not to suggest that the evidence of the members of the trap party is to be rejected brandishing them as interested and partisan witnesses and their evidence tainted. 17. 17. In the case of State of U.P. v. Zakaullah reported in 1998 Cr LJ 863 : 1998(1) East Cr C 619 (SC) it was held that the fact that the trap officer successfully trapped the delinquent was no ground to conclude his animosity against the delinquent and the evidence of the Trap Officer could be relied upon even without corroboration. In the case at hand, the evidence of the Vigilance Officials, the members of the trap party (PWs 1, 6, 7 and 9) who were not at all inimical to the appellant inspires confidence and the same be accepted. The Magistrate (PW 10) must be said to be an independent witness. 18. PW 14 could not identify the appellant in the court either on account of his weak memory or he might have made statement that the appellant was not the Head Assistant who demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from him with intent to help him and to that extent he must also be said to be hostile to the truth but in the face of un-impeachable and corroborative evidence on record, the statement of PW 14 that the appellant was not the person who demanded and accepted bribe money and the same was recovered from his pocket cannot instill even the slightest suspicion in the prosecution version. 19. The evidence of PWs 6 and 14 abundantly established that the appellant in the capacity of public servant acting as Head Assistant demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 900/-from PW 14 for getting him registered as a contractor in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Patna. The evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate considered together with the evidence of PWs 6, 14, 1, 9, 12, 15 as well as the Investigating Officer (PW 17) amply proved that the appellant demanded and accepted illegal gratification of a sum Rs. 900/-from PW 14 for getting his work done and he was caught hold of red handed and the bribe money was recovered and seized from his possession. It is also to be observed that when the appellant was arrested and challenged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 7) and the Magistrate (PW 10) that he had accepted bribe money worth Rs. It is also to be observed that when the appellant was arrested and challenged by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 7) and the Magistrate (PW 10) that he had accepted bribe money worth Rs. 900/- he was perplexed and speechless and he did not react and did not say that he had not taken any bribe and the tainted currency notes were forcibly thrust into his pocket. Even in his statement under Section 313 Cr PC the appellant did not make any such statement and he simply denied to have demanded and accepted bribe. He could not explain how the tainted currency notes came into his pocket. His denial simplicitor cannot exonerate him of the charges. The appellant was the Head Assistant in the office of the Superintendent Engineer and he was in a position to get the complainant registered as a contractor. 20. It was contended that since the complainant (PW 14) did not say in specific terms that he handed over the marked currency notes to the appellant on demand made by him and he did not identify the appellant in the dock and said that the appellant standing in the dock not the person who demanded illegal gratification and was given the bribe money by him on account of which his attention was drawn to his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr PC the charges levelled against the appellant could not be said to have been proved beyond the reasonable doubt. The contention is devoid of merit and force and the same cannot be accepted. PW 14 supported the factum of demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the marked currency noted in the form of bribe money by the delinquent Head Assistant Shiv Kumar Shrivastava. He simply declined to have identified the appellant as the delinquent who demanded and accepted illegal gratification and from whose possession tainted currency notes were recovered and seized. PW 14 did not resile from his statement that he approached the Head Assistant (appellant) in connection with his registration as a contractor whereupon he demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 900/- for getting his work done and he did pay the said amount to him and he was caught hold of and the bribe money was recovered from his possession by Vigilance sleuth in the trap laid on him. 900/- for getting his work done and he did pay the said amount to him and he was caught hold of and the bribe money was recovered from his possession by Vigilance sleuth in the trap laid on him. Merely because PW 14 said that he did not identify the appellant or that the appellant was not the person who demanded and accepted bribe money, the prosecution case cannot fail particularly when responsible public servants such as the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 7), the Inspector (PW 6) and the Superintending Engineers Technical Advisor (PW 12) under whom the appellant worked as Head Assistant supporting the prosecution case in its entirety identified the appellant in the court and stated that it was he who demanded and accepted bribe money worth Rs. 900/- and the marked currency notes worth Rs. 900/- were recovered and seized from his possession in presence of several witnesses. 21. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. J.B. Singh reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 1507 : 2000 (3) East Cr C 814 (SC) respondent who happened to be a police officer was charged with demanding and accepting illegal gratification form one Mithai Lal. The complainant (PW 9) did not support the prosecution case and he was permitted to be cross examined by the prosecution. The factum of demand was sought to be proved by one Badri Prasad (PW 7) who was known to Mithai Lal and according to his evidence he went to the police station on being requested by the father of Mithai Lal to find out as to how Mithai Lal was being detained at the police station. PW 1 simply said that the Sub Inspector of Police had told him that the accused should pay some money for being released. His that statement could not be held to be a statement to establish that the accused made the demand from Mithai Lal. Complainant Mithai Lal did not support the prosecution case that he made payment to the accused. There was no other material to establish the alleged payment. Under the circumstances the accused was acquitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The facts and circumstances of the case relied upon by the appellant are entirely different from those of the present case and as such that case is not relevant for this case. 22. There was no other material to establish the alleged payment. Under the circumstances the accused was acquitted by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The facts and circumstances of the case relied upon by the appellant are entirely different from those of the present case and as such that case is not relevant for this case. 22. Sanction for prosecution of the appellant was accorded by PW 13 A.K. Lal, Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary-cum-Additional Commissioner, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. He stated that he received the letter dated 1.1.1986 from the Vigilance Department along with case diary and connected papers of vigilance PS Case No. 9 of 1985 registered under Section 161 of the Code and Section 5(2) of the Act and he perused the same and obtained opinion of the Law Department and thereafter he accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant. He proved sanction order (Ext. 6) made by him. He also stated that he was the competent authority for making appointment to the post of Head Assistant and for removing him form service. In his cross examination PW 13 said the appellant was at that time posted as Head Assistant in the office of the Superintending Engineer, REO, Patna. The fact that the appellant did not recite in the sanction order (Ext. 6) that he had perused the case diary and other connected papers and obtained opinion from the Law Department before according sanction cannot be interpreted to mean that he accorded sanction without applying his judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case nor can on that score alone the sanction order be said to be vitiated in law. 23. It is to be held that valid and legal sanction for prosecution of the appellant was accorded by the competent authority and there was no impediment or hurdle in prosecuting the appellant. 24. The last point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was non-use of phenolphthalein powder in treating the marked currency notes on account of which, according to him. prosecution case must be said to have been rendered doubtful. It is true that treatment of tainted currency notes with phenolphthalein powder provides more viable and reliable proof of handling of the currency notes and acceptance of the same by the delinquent public servant in pursuance of demand of illegal gratification. prosecution case must be said to have been rendered doubtful. It is true that treatment of tainted currency notes with phenolphthalein powder provides more viable and reliable proof of handling of the currency notes and acceptance of the same by the delinquent public servant in pursuance of demand of illegal gratification. Shri Pandey learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Vigilance Department contended that phenolphthalein powder came to be used in laying trap on the delinquent public servant in Bihar after 1989-90 and it was not used prior to that and it was definitely not in use in the year 1985 and hence the marked currency notes handed over to and recovered and seized from possession of the appellant could not have been treated with phenolphthalein powder on 19.4.1985. The learned counsel further contended that the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Magistrate in reply to question put to them stated that on phenolphthalein powder was used for treating the marked currency notes but the defence counsel cross examining the witnesses deliberately did not further ask the witnesses why phenolphthalein powder was not used for, he was aware of the fact that at the time of occurrence in 19.4.1985 phenolphthalein powder had not come to be used in Bihar and had PWs 7 and 10 been put question as to why the said powder was not used for treating the currency notes they would have made proper reply that it had not come in use in Bihar by that time. The contention put forward by Shri Pandey seems to be pregnant with meaning and substance. 25. The case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Punjab reported, in (1976) 1 SCC 145 is of no avail to the appellant. In that case the accused was alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification for granting exemption from goods tax but in fact he was not dealing with such application. Again the Officer on whose behalf the accused allegedly demanded bribe was not concerned with the complainants case at that time and the complainant was aware of this fact. Besides, no independent and responsible witnesses were included in the raid and phenolphthalein powder was also not used for treating the marked currency notes. Under the circumstances the accused was acquitted by the apex Court In the case at hand the witnesses were responsible and independent ones. Besides, no independent and responsible witnesses were included in the raid and phenolphthalein powder was also not used for treating the marked currency notes. Under the circumstances the accused was acquitted by the apex Court In the case at hand the witnesses were responsible and independent ones. The Magistrate (PW 10), Technical Advisor (PW 12) and Jawed (PW 15) were independent and responsible witnesses. Besides the Deputy Superintendent of Police (PW 7), Inspectors of Vigilance (PWs 1 and 6) were also responsible witnesses who were not at all inimical to the appellant and as such they could also be said to be independent witnesses. Merely because they belonged to the Vigilance Department and.were members of the trap party, their evidence cannot be viewed with suspicion vide the principle of law enunciated in the case of State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, (supra). Again in the case of Raghubir Singh, (supra) the delinquent was not dealing with the matter for which he demanded illegal gratification but in the case before this Court, the appellant was very much dealing with the application of the complainant (PW 14) which would be evident form the evidence of his superior officer (PW 12) who stated that the appellant dealt with the applications for registration of Grade III contractors and the application of the complainant with endorsement of PW 12 thereon and allied papers to wit SBI, letter regarding deposit of money, income tax clearance certificate etc., were also recovered & seized from possession of the appellant. Obviously, the appellant was dealing with the matter concerning registration of the complainant as a contractor and he could have got bis work done for which he demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The facts and circumstances of the case of Raghubir Singh (supra) being entirely different, the ratio decidendi on that case is not applicable to the instant case. 26. In view of the facts, circumstances and evidence discussed and the observations made in the preceding paragraphs it is to be held that the appellant by abusing his position as public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 900/- from the complainant and thereby he rendered himself liable under Section 161 of the Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. The learned- court below rightly found and held him guilty and convicted him. 27. 900/- from the complainant and thereby he rendered himself liable under Section 161 of the Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. The learned- court below rightly found and held him guilty and convicted him. 27. It was vehemently urged that the incident took place over 15 years ago and since then the appellant had been running to Court and he had thus obviously been already put to tremendous harassment and mental agony; that he had also suffered the rigour of jail life during his incarceration for about over a month during investigation and that the appellant was now sufficiently old and he had already retired from service and after his superannuation he underwent open heart surgery and he was still undergoing treatment. In the light of the aforesaid contentions it was submitted that the appellant now deserved to be let off without infliction of any further sentence on him. I am afraid, the appellant cannot be exonerated of the charges on the basis of the aforesaid contentions. The points raised on behalf of the appellant can at best be taken into account for taking a lenient view in the matter of sentence to be awarded to him. 28. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Taking the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of offence into account and a lso keeping in view the fact that the incident took place about 15 years ago and the appellant had already suffered a lot of harassment and mental agony and he had also been in jail custody for over a month, taking a lenient view he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period alredy undergone by him and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand and five hundred and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The aforesaid sentence shall, perhaps, meet the ends of justice. 29. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of fine within two months from the date of this order failing which coercive steps shall be taken against him for realisation of fine. The aforesaid sentence shall, perhaps, meet the ends of justice. 29. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, the appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount of fine within two months from the date of this order failing which coercive steps shall be taken against him for realisation of fine. Let the records along with copy of this order be transmitted to the court below without any loss of time.