Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1136 (JHR)

Ram Nandan Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2009-08-18

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J 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 u/s 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation made against the appellant by the informant are all false and fabricated since as per the circular of the government under the I.R.D.P. programme all the pumps will be ensured compulsorily as per the order of the NABARD bank. Hence he was realizing Rs.100/-insurance charges of each pump. As such money taken by him was not a bribe but taken as per the direction, for getting insurance of the pump set. Hence he was realizing Rs.100/-insurance charges of each pump. As such money taken by him was not a bribe but taken as per the direction, for getting insurance of the pump set. Hence, the conviction of the appellant u/s 7/13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. 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. 5. After hearing the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the trial court has examined altogether 20 witnesses to prove the charges. P.W.1 Lakhsmi Narayan Singh is the S.I of Vigilance Dept. P.W.2. Biglal Oraon, the then Dy.S.P. Vigilance, Ranchi now Rohtas P.W.3 Satyendra Pd. Deo, Dy.S.P. Vigilance, Dumka P.W.4 Siya Saran Yadav, Staff of Vigilance Dept. is tendered witness. P.W.5 Phulchand Oraon, Villager P.W.6, Flora Orain, Villager. P.W.7. Gabrial Oraon, villager P.W.8. Ram Sevek Shukla, Clerk of Insurance Dept. P.W.9 Siya Saran Rai, employee of Vigilance Dept. P.W.10 B.S. Toppo, S.I. Vigilance. P.W.11 Amitesh Sinha, Sr. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. P.W.12, Dhaneshwar Paramanik, villager, independent witness P.W.13 Runja Oraon, informant of the case P.W.14 Md. Salim, Independent witness P.W.15 Brij Nandan Prasad Sinha, Addl.S.P., Vig. Dept. Patna. P.W.16 Binod Sinha, Addl. Registrar, Cooperative Society, Ranchi. P.W.17 Gopal ji Jha, Scientific Assistant, Forensic Science Lab. P.W.18 Parmeshwar Ravidas, City Dy.S.P., Ranchi. P.W.19 Rai Suresh Nandan Prasad, Constable P.W.20 Maheswar Prasad Mishra, Jt. Secy.Personnel & Admn. Reforms,Raj Bhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand 6. The defence has also examined three witnesses D.W.1 Parmeshwar Bhagat, retired B.D.O. D.W.2 Awadesh Kr. Sinha, Branch Manager, Ranchi Cooperative Bank. D.W.3 Basudeo Marandi, Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. 7. From the evidences adduced by the prosecution, it appears that the prosecution witnesses are examined in two sets. Secy.Personnel & Admn. Reforms,Raj Bhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand 6. The defence has also examined three witnesses D.W.1 Parmeshwar Bhagat, retired B.D.O. D.W.2 Awadesh Kr. Sinha, Branch Manager, Ranchi Cooperative Bank. D.W.3 Basudeo Marandi, Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. 7. From the evidences adduced by the prosecution, it appears that the prosecution witnesses are examined in two sets. One is the informant and other village people who have proved that there was a demand of Rs.100/-each from the villagers who were the beneficiaries under the government scheme of getting pump set from Brombay Lamps. The second sets of witnesses are the members of the raiding party of the Vigilance Department. 8. The first set of witnesses include the informant, P.W.13 Runja Oraon and co-villagers P.W.5 Phulchand Oraon, P.W.6-Flora Uraoian , P.W.7 Gabrial Oraon etc. The informant, P.W.13 has stated in his evidence that he made a complaint against the manager of Brombay Lamps, Ram Nandan Pandey since, from every beneficiaries who were getting pump set, he was demanding Rs.100/-as bribe. He demanded Rs. 100/-from him also. When he refused to give the money saying that he has no money at that time then the manager gave the machine without pipe. After that he made written complaint to the Vigilance Department. He identified his writing and signature on the complaint which was marked as ext.8 and his signature as Ext.8/2. After that one officer of Vigilance came with him to Brombay and he went to the office of the manager Lamps, R.N.Pandey. When he asked him to give the pipe then he again demanded Rs. 100/-. He said that he will make arrangement for the money, then the manager asked him to come after 5 days with the money. When the Vigilance people came on 31.8.1988 with the money then he went on 31.8.1988 with the money and gave him 5 currency notes of 20 denomination each. The notes number were recorded and a memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, money was given in envelop to him. He also signed on the memorandum. He identified his signature in the memorandum (Ext.5) marked as Ext.1/3. Then with the Vigilance people he went to Brombay Lamps. Two officers of Vigilance Dept. came behind him. He entered the office and gave the money to Sri Ram Nandan Pandey,who counted the money and kept in the pocket of his kurta. He also signed on the memorandum. He identified his signature in the memorandum (Ext.5) marked as Ext.1/3. Then with the Vigilance people he went to Brombay Lamps. Two officers of Vigilance Dept. came behind him. He entered the office and gave the money to Sri Ram Nandan Pandey,who counted the money and kept in the pocket of his kurta. After that the vigilance people entered the office and caught hold of him and recovered the money from his pocket in presence of independent witneses. He identified the 5 notes which were marked as material Ext.I to I/IV. He has stated that he brought the money from his house. He has stated in cross examination that even after taking money no insurance of machine was done. All the machines were given without any insurance. He has stated that his village is at a distance of two mile from the Brombay Lamps. He has stated that on the date of raid the shop of Lamps was opened and there was crowd. The informant has been supported by other village witnesses namely P.W.5, 6 and 7. P.W.5 Phulchand Oraon has stated that on 1.8.1988 he had received an irrigation pump from the Brombay Lamps. He has stated that Ram Nandan Pandey, manager of the Lamps demanded Rs.100/-saying that Rs.50/-spent on bringing the pump sets from Ranchi and Rs. 50/-as increased price of the machines. The manager has taken 100/-from each beneficiaries for irrigation pump. Since, Runja Oraon, the informant, failed to give Rs.100/-, pipe was not given to him. In cross examination in para 4 he has stated that he has not got insurance of that machine done by him and denied that Pandey Ji has taken money for insurance of the machine. P.W.4 Flora Orain has stated that she also received irrigation machine from Brombay Lamps and the manager , Ram Nandan Pandey had taken Rs.100/-for giving the machine saying that he took Rs. 50/-as cost of bringing the machine from Ranchi and Rs.50/-as the increased price of the machine. She identified the accused in the court. In her cross examination she has stated that about 25 persons were given machines by the Brombay Lamps. She also stated that she had shown machine and receipt to the police. At para 10 she denied that she gave any money to Pandey Ji for insurance of the machine. She identified the accused in the court. In her cross examination she has stated that about 25 persons were given machines by the Brombay Lamps. She also stated that she had shown machine and receipt to the police. At para 10 she denied that she gave any money to Pandey Ji for insurance of the machine. P.W.7 Gabrial Oraon also stated that he had received pump set on 1.8.1988 from Pandey Ji, Manager of the Brombay Lamps on payment of Rs.100/-. He gave no receipt of the same. He also identified the accused in the court. Thus all the village witnesses have supported the prosecution case that Rs.100/-was demanded by the appellant-accused on the pretext of carriage charge plus charge of increased price. 9. The vigilance dept. witnesses, namely P.W.2 Biglal Oraon Dy.S.P., P.W.3, S.P.Deo, P.W.1 Laxmi Narayan Singh, P.W.9 Siya Saran Rai, P.W. 10 B.S. Toppo have all proved the fact that on the application of the informant, P.W.13, Runja Oraon, after verification a team was constituted and the team went with the informant to Brombay Lamps where the appellant-accused, Ram Nandan Pandey received Rs.100/-from the informant and subsequently in the presence of independent witnesses he was caught red handed and after verification of other procedures he was arrested. P.W.2, Biglal Oraon, Dy.S.P. has stated that on 31.8.1988 he was posted at Vigilance Dept. office at Ranchi. At about 8 A.M. on that day Runja Oraon, informant came and gave 5 currency notes of Rs.20/-denomination each which was received by Dy.S.P. P.Ravidas in presence of Special Magistrate, Vigilance. The currency notes memorandum was prepared which was signed by him and also by Dy.S.P. P. Ravidas and Special Magistrate. He proved his signature as Ext.1 then phenolphathalin powder was put on the notes by Sri P. Ravidas. Then he kept the note in the envelop, gave it to the informant and asked him that on demand he will give that envelop to the accused. Thereafter, the S.P. Vigilance made a raiding team. He also signed on the paper also. All the members of the raiding party reached Bazaar at 10.30. That was market day. Lot of people were present near Lamps. They got themselves mix up in the crowd. Dy.S.P. P. Ravidas, Inspector Bhagwan Singh and S.I. Garbet Hembrum went with the informant. They all got themselves in hiding behind the office. He also signed on the paper also. All the members of the raiding party reached Bazaar at 10.30. That was market day. Lot of people were present near Lamps. They got themselves mix up in the crowd. Dy.S.P. P. Ravidas, Inspector Bhagwan Singh and S.I. Garbet Hembrum went with the informant. They all got themselves in hiding behind the office. At about 11.00 a.m. when the informant gave signal that money has been taken by the manager, then they all went inside and caught hold of the accused. Suddenly, many villagers came near the office then in the presence of two independent witnesses, the officer of Vigilance Department stated that they are from Vigilance dept. and they have caught the manager taking bribe in presence of two witnesses after showing them the memorandum of G.C. notes they recovered the same from the person of the accused-appellant. Before doing that Mr. Ravidas had got himself checked by the independent witnesses and nothing was found in his pocket. From the pocket of the manager, Rs. 225/-was recovered which included 5(Five) notes of 20 denomination each. The numbers of the notes in presence of the witnesses were tallied with the memorandum. Thereafter, solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared in three beakers on the instruction of Mr. Ravidas and then hands of the accused were washed from that solution in one of the beaker to which solution became pink. In other beaker left hand finger was put which also became pink. The pocket of his Kurta was put in the third beaker which also became pink. Then seizure list of the notes and pink solution of the three beakers were made in presence of independent witnesses which was signed by the independent witnesses. From the godown bills with regard to seized pipe and pump was recovered and separate seizure list was prepared which was also signed by the independent witnesses. Thereafter, accused was arrested. In cross examination, he has stated that money was not given in his presence but phenolphathalin powder was put on the G.C. notes which were recovered from the accused. He has signed the seizure list and stated that he does not know the informant from before. Thereafter, accused was arrested. In cross examination, he has stated that money was not given in his presence but phenolphathalin powder was put on the G.C. notes which were recovered from the accused. He has signed the seizure list and stated that he does not know the informant from before. Other witnesses, P.W.1, 3 and 9 have also supported the evidence of P.W.2 that the raiding party went with the informant and 5 currency notes of 20 denomination each of Rs.100/-was brought to the Vigilance Officer, Ranchi and number of which was noted in the memorandum and which had phenolphathalin powder was recovered from the possession of the accused and then after making seizure list he was arrested. The Independent witness, P.W.12 Dhaneshwar Paramanik has also supported the said fact that on the date of occurrence on 31.8.1988 he was present in the Brombay Chouk and seeing the crowd in the office of Lamps. manager, he went there and found that two persons are holding his hands. On enquiry, they stated that they are from Vigilance Department and Special Magistrate of Vigilance and that they have caught the accused while taking bribe from the informant. The memorandum of the notes was shown to him. Thereafter, he signed the memorandum. He proved his signature in the memorandum as Ext.3/1. Other independent witness, P.W.14, Md. Salim has also signed the same in his presence. He has proved his signature also. He firstly made a search on the person of Dy.S.P, but nothing was found from him. Thereafter, search was made on the person of Ram Nandan Pandey and from the pocket of his Kurta 5 G.C. note of 20 denomination each was recovered which was tallied with the number given in the memorandum of the notes. He identified his signature. He signed in presence of Special Magistrate on the note marked as Ext.I and I/IV. In his presence, hand, kurta of the accused Ram Nandan Pandey was washed in three beakers which became pink. He had signed the three bottles and proved his signature as Ext.2, 3 and 3/2. The godown of Lamps was also examined and all the receipts of the pipes and machines were seized. He signed on the seizure list also. Copy of the seizure list was given to the accused and he signed on the same marked as Ext.6 and 6/1. 10. The godown of Lamps was also examined and all the receipts of the pipes and machines were seized. He signed on the seizure list also. Copy of the seizure list was given to the accused and he signed on the same marked as Ext.6 and 6/1. 10. Thus, after hearing the parties and from the evidences on record, it is clear that the prosecution has proved that demand of Rs.100/-was made from each and every 25 beneficiaries who got irrigation pump set from Lamps and it has already been proved that in presence of witnesses of Vigilance Dept. and independent witnesses, the money so paid was recovered from the possession of accused-appellant, Ram Nandan Pandey. 11. The defence of the accused before trial was that he had taken Rs.100/-from each and every beneficiary for getting the insurance of the machines as per notification of the authorities and to prove his defence, he has examined 3 Defence witnesses. D.W.1 Parmeshwar Bhagat has stated that on the date of occurrence he was B.D.O. Mandar and the accused Ramnandan Pandey was the manager of LAMPS. He has stated that as per the notification of NABARD, it is compulsory to get the insurance done of all the water pumps which were given to the beneficiaries. He has proved the scheme of NABARD as Ext.A. He has stated that the insurance was done after taking money from the beneficiaries. Lamps was given pump sets on payment to be bear by the government fund under DRDP scheme. He has stated that earlier there was no scheme for doing the insurance of the machines which was given to the beneficiaries. D.W.2 Awadesh Kr. Sinha has stated that he was the Branch Manager of Cooperative in August 1979. He has stated that he was directed by the court to come with cheque no. 138025 dated 30.8.1988 by which insurance was to be given, but he could not locate the same. He has come with the ledger. He has stated that payment was received on 15.9.1988 from Brombay Lamps account to the insurance company. He has proved the ledger as Ext.C. D.W.3. Basudeo Marandi is the Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. He has stated that he was asked to come with the insurance policy which was given to Brombay LAMPS. He has stated that payment was received on 15.9.1988 from Brombay Lamps account to the insurance company. He has proved the ledger as Ext.C. D.W.3. Basudeo Marandi is the Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. He has stated that he was asked to come with the insurance policy which was given to Brombay LAMPS. beneficiaries in 1988 but, he stated that since the matter has become old, there is no such record as some the records have been destroyed. 12. Thus, after going through the prosecution witnesses it is ample clear that the prosecution has proved the fact that the accused-appellant, Ram Nandan Pandey had demanded Rs.100/-from all the 25 beneficiaries who were to get irrigation pump from the Lamps under the D.R.D.P. scheme. 13. The defence has also admitted that they had taken Rs.100/-each from every beneficiary for getting insurance. Now it is only to be seen as to whether the defence has able to prove its point or not. D.W.1 has stated that as per the circular it was necessary to get the insurance of the machine and the accused had taken Rs.100/-for insurance. He has admitted in para 9 of his cross examination that this notification was circulated to all the cooperative society after 1988. That means on the date when the appellant-accused received Rs.100/-each, it was not for insurance, but as illegal gratification in the name of price increase. The evidence of D.W.2 who was Branch Manager of Central Cooperative Bank, Ranchi, Khunti also shows that the ledger proved as Ext.C shows that amount of Rs.100/-was debited in favour of insurance company on 15.9.1988. The date shows that the amount debited much after the occurrence which shows that the plea was nothing but to create some defence. D.W.3, Branch Manager of National Insurance Co. Ltd. could not give any proof of insurance. 14. In that view of the matter, the appellant has failed to prove its defence and as such he was rightly found guilty by the trial court u/s 7/13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. I find no illegality in the finding of the trial court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 7.6.2002 passed by Shri D.K.Lal, th Additional Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, Vigilance Department, Ranchi in Special Case No.16 of 1988 is hereby confirmed. I find no illegality in the finding of the trial court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and judgment of conviction and order sentence dated 7.6.2002 passed by Shri D.K.Lal, th Additional Judicial Commissioner cum Special Judge, Vigilance Department, Ranchi in Special Case No.16 of 1988 is hereby confirmed. Since, the appellant is on provisional bail. His bail bond is cancelled and the trial court is directed to issue warrant of arrest forthwith on the accused for serving out the sentence.