JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge VIII -cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. No. 18(A) /94(R) whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 he has also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of which he is to undergo R.I. for 15 days and further convicted for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act 1988 and also pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default of which he is to undergo R.I. for 15 days and both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that the father of one Satendra Prasad namely Janardhan had retired from the Bokaro Steel Ltd. on 31.8.89. Due to some reasons he could not the vacate Government Quarter. His father was suffering from Paralysis. His father had vacated the quarter on 26.11.93. His father had given an application to the Managing Director for not realising the panel rent. He has met the dealing Clerk, Vakil Sharan Singh of Town Administration on 23.8.94 then he told that for exemption of the penal rent of electricity charges, he has to give Rs.500/- to him. He requested and said that he is unable to give the money as he is a poor man. Then Vakil Sharan Singh told him to give Rs.500/- as early as possible then only his penal rent will be exempted. It appears that on receipt of the information through source with regard to the aforesaid fact of demand of illegal gratification of Rs.500/- by the accused from Satyendra Prasad regarding exemption of the aforesaid charges in respect of quarter allotted to Janardan Prasad (father of the informant), S.P.C.B.I. had directed Narain Jha, Dy. S.P. C.B.I. Ranchi on 24.8.94 to constitute a team and to contact the complainant at Bokaro Steel City on 25.8.94 at about 10 A.M. for taking necessary action against Vakil Sharan Singh. S.P. C.B.I. Ranchi on 24.8.94 to constitute a team and to contact the complainant at Bokaro Steel City on 25.8.94 at about 10 A.M. for taking necessary action against Vakil Sharan Singh. From the F.I.R. it appears that Dy. S.P. Narain Jha had constituted a team, independent witnesses were also arranged in presence of these persons as well as complainant, pre trap proceeding was arranged, details of which was recorded in a separate pre trap memorandum and thereafter, trap was laid. The accused was arrested while demanding and accepting bribe money of Rs.500/-. The same was also recovered from his possession and after this, memorandum of recovery was prepared separately. A written complaint by the complainant, Satendra Prasad was also given in this regard when he had met the Dy. S.P. Narain Jha. A written report containing the aforesaid details was prepared and formal F.I.R. was drawn on 26.8.94 and a regular case bearing R.C.Case No. 18A/94(R) was instituted against the accused appellant. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the accused appellant under the aforesaid Sections of the P.C.Act. 1988. 3. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in this case. P.W.1 Suresh Rai, P.W.2 Vijay Bahadur Singh, P.W.3 Md. Kamruddin, P.W.4 Satendra Prasad, P.W.5 Ramasuba Aijar Ram Chandran, P.W.6 Baban Tiwari, P.W.7 Baban Prasad Singh, P.W.8 Raghubansh Sharma, P.W.9 Ajay Kumar, P.W.10 Bimlendu Das, P.W.11 Narain Jha. The prosecution has produced a number of documents which have been marked Exhibits. Defence has not examined any witness neither any documentary evidence has been brought on the record on his behalf. 4. The defence of the appellant is that he has falsely been implicated in this case and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. Mr. P.S. Pati, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the trial court has totally failed to appreciate that the accused appellant was not a competent person to take any step for exempting the complainant or his father from paying the panel rent of the electricity and the Managing Director is the only person who can exempt the same. Even the accused appellant was not the dealing Clerk relating to the aforesaid matter and in any way he had no concerned in the said matter. Even the accused appellant was not the dealing Clerk relating to the aforesaid matter and in any way he had no concerned in the said matter. This fact has also come in the evidence of P.W.2 namely Bijay Bahadur Singh who was Manager, Land and Estate, Town Administration, Bokaro Steel Plant at the relevant period. He was also working in Final Settlement Cell where the claims and dues of the Ex-employee usually are settled. The said P.W.2 has also stated in his evidence that the accused appellant was not Dealing Assistant in the office of Managing Director at that point of time neither accused appellant was the staff of Establishment office. The said accused appellant was Assistant in his Department. Therefore, there is no occasion for the accused appellant to demand any money as illegal gratification for exempting the penal rent of the complainant as stated above. In this regard Mr. Pati has cited a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (6) S.C.C.-444 State of Punjab Vs. Sohan Singh in which it is decided:- “15....Indisputably again, in view of the categorical statement made by Gurcharan Singh, P.W.9, the high tension connection could be granted in terms of the seniority list only and after the installation of the transformer. The respondent, who was a Junior Engineer, according to P.W.9 had no role to play in the matter. Priority in the matter of grant of connection could only be granted by the higher authorities in the Board. It was in the aforementioned factual scenario, the defence of the respondent must be considered. 20. We have noticed hereinbefore that in the matter of grant of electric connection out of turn where a seniority list has been prepared, the respondent had no role to play, Moreover, connection could have been granted only after the installation of transformer, which was within the exclusive domain of the higher authorities of the Board.” Therefore, the accused needs to possess the power to do the work for which he has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. P.S. Pati, the learned counsel has further contended that the court below has failed to take into consideration that there is material contradictions regarding point of recovery of the bribe money and different version has came through the mouth of the different witnesses and there is no consistent deposition by which this appellant can be convicted for the alleged aforesaid offence. In this regard, he has pointed out that P.W.1 and 3 who are the independent witnesses did not entered into the kitchen room rather they were sitting in the hall of the canteen at the relevant time. As the hall of the canteen and the kitchen are two different place and the person seating in the hall was not in a position to see that what is happening in the kitchen. Thus, none of the independent witnesses had any occasion to hear the conversation or to see any transaction between the accused appellant and complainant as admittedly both of them were in the kitchen, not in the hall of the canteen. Therefore, these witnesses have given false evidence against the accused appellant to make the raid successful. 7. Mr. Pati has further submitted that there is no verification report and admittedly the contents of the F.I.R. does not show the source of the information as it has come in the contents of the F.I.R. “on receipt of information through a source to the effect...”. Thus, it is very doubtful whether the aggrieved party gave any information or the person having inimical term with the accused appellant did this mischief and falsely implicate the accused appellant due to his grudge and enmity. Mr. Pati has further submitted that some of the officials have some grudge against the appellant who were working in the same department and only at their instant, the appellant is made escape goat. 8. It is further contended that the Inspector P.K. Panigrahi has not been examined by the prosecution and the prosecution has also not explained as to why he has not been examined and due to his non-examination, it has caused prejudice to the case of the defence. 9. Mr. Pati has further pointed out that the complaint petition(Ext-6) filed by the complainant on 25.8.1994 but in the F.I.R. it has come that S.P. C.B.I. had directed Narain Jha, Dy,. 9. Mr. Pati has further pointed out that the complaint petition(Ext-6) filed by the complainant on 25.8.1994 but in the F.I.R. it has come that S.P. C.B.I. had directed Narain Jha, Dy,. S.P. C.B.I., Ranchi on 24.8.94 to constitute a team and to contact the complainant at Bokaro Steel City on 25.8.94 at about 10. A.M. for taking necessary action against Vakil Sharan Singh. Complainant has also not stated in his complaint petition that before filing the complainant petition he has informed the C.B.I. authority or any other authority concerned. Therefore, it is very surprising that how the C.B.I. authority without any information from the complainant, one day prior to filing the complaint petition, the C.B.I. authority directed to constitute a team for taking action against the accused appellant. It casts a great doubt on the prosecution case. 10. Mr. Pati has contended that the trial court has failed to consider the contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the money from the accused appellant. 11. Mr. Khan the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., has submitted that the prosecution has proved the allegation against the accused appellant as the independent witnesses have very specifically stated about the demand of illegal gratification and accepting the same by the accused appellant. It is further pointed that the prosecution has only to prove the pre trap, trap and post trap formalities which have been done properly in this case. Furthermore, recovery of the tainted amount also tallied with the numbers of the currency notes mentioned in the pre trap memorandum. Therefore, impugned judgment needs no interference. 12. Perused the evidence of the witnesses and also the documents of the case. From the record, I find that P.W.9 who was posted as Sr. Estate Officer, Revenue, Bokaro Steel Plant during the year 1994 has clearly stated in his evidence that the power of waiving penal rent and electricity charges is only to the Managing Director to whom the application can be given or it can be sent through D.G.M., T.A. also. In para-6, he had also said that no demand certificate is prepared by final settlement cell of T.A. Department. From his evidence in para.7, it appears that the Vakil Sharan Singh as in final settlement Cell in T.A. Department as Assistant in 1994. In para-6, he had also said that no demand certificate is prepared by final settlement cell of T.A. Department. From his evidence in para.7, it appears that the Vakil Sharan Singh as in final settlement Cell in T.A. Department as Assistant in 1994. His duty was to prepare N.D.C. (No Demand Certificate) of separate employees relating to the matter of house rent, electricity charges and damage fixture recovery, the meter reading from the ward book. He has further stated in his evidence in cross- examination that Vakil Sharan Singh has prepared No Dues Certificate on16.06.1994 and Advise No. 746 dated 25.5.94 received from the Record Cell. Therefore, it is clear that the accused appellant was working in a Town Administration Department. The evidence also shows that he was working in Final Settlement Cell. It also appears from the evidence of P.W.9 that the duty of the accused appellant is preparation of demand of electricity charges though he has charged only on the basis of the records and on the basis of the meter reading which is done by the other concern staffs. Therefore, the evidence shows that the accused appellant was in-charge of preparing documents concerned and was associate with the matter of realization of the electricity charges. P.W.9 has also stated in his evidence that one can apply directly to the Managing Director or also can apply through D.G.M. (T.A.) i.e. Town Administration. The accused was at the relevant time was the employee of Town Administration Deptt. He was associated with the work of demand of electricity charges. In this situation, it is quite natural that one may approach to the accused appellant in connection with the matter of waiving of the electricity charge. Therefore, it can not be said that the accused appellant was not at all related with the matter of electricity charges. Thus, argument advanced in this regard is not at all tenable and the aforesaid decision cited by the counsel appearing for the appellant is not applicable in this case. 13. Admittedly the contents of the F.I.R. shows that the direction for the constituting the trap team was made on 24.8.94 i.e. one day prior to filing the complaint petition (Ext-6) as the complaint petition was filed by the complainant on 25.8.94. 13. Admittedly the contents of the F.I.R. shows that the direction for the constituting the trap team was made on 24.8.94 i.e. one day prior to filing the complaint petition (Ext-6) as the complaint petition was filed by the complainant on 25.8.94. Even the contents of the F.I.R. does not show as from where the C.B.I. Officials received the information regarding the demand of illegal gratification by the accused appellant from the complainant, even in the complaint petition it is not mentioned that the complainant has given any information to any of the C.B.I. Officials on 24.8.94 or prior to that date. No doubt, it casts a great doubt on the prosecution case. 14. From the record, I find that the kitchen was one corner of the canteen hall and the entire episode in respect of demand and acceptance of the money was done in the kitchen and both the independent witnesses were in the canteen hall at the relevant time. None of them entered into the kitchen with the complainant. Furthermore, none of the independent witnesses have stated that they were in such a position in the hall of the canteen that they can hear and see the demand of money and acceptance by the accused appellant rather it has come in the evidence of the P.W.1 at para-41 and 42 that he and D.S.P (P.W.11) were sitting on a bench which was on the Western side attached with the western wall of the hall (i.e. just opposite side of the Kitchen), when the complainant and the accused appellant were inside the said kitchen. Thereafter, the complainant came out from the kitchen having a paper on his hand but the P.W.1 could not say what was written on the said paper. As the hall is sufficiently big and number of persons were taking tea and talking with each other, therefore it is absolutely not possible for P.W.1 and D.S.P. (P.W.11) to hear or see the money transaction. The said evidence of the P.W.1 clearly proves that he and Dy. S.P. were sitting in the hall at the relevant period of transaction. 15. P.W.5 has said that he being the competent authority to appoint the accused appellant, he has granted sanction to prosecute him after perusing the records and documents which were produced before him. Therefore, there is no illegality in the sanction order (Ext-6A). 16. S.P. were sitting in the hall at the relevant period of transaction. 15. P.W.5 has said that he being the competent authority to appoint the accused appellant, he has granted sanction to prosecute him after perusing the records and documents which were produced before him. Therefore, there is no illegality in the sanction order (Ext-6A). 16. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding verification, it is true that no verification was done by any of the authority. There is neither any verification report in the record nor any person has been examined who has done verification in this case before lodging the F.I.R. by the C.B.I. Officials. As discussed above, the facts which have come from the records of the case and the evidence of the witnesses clearly shows that before submitting complaint petition, trap team was constituted by the C.B.I. Official even without any verification against the accused appellant and furthermore, as there are various contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount and non examination of Mr. Panigrahi, Inspector C.B.I. who was also one of the member of the trap team, it can not be said that the entire prosecution case and the trap conducted by the prosecution party are free from doubt. 17. Thus, in my view the prosecution has not able to prove the aforesaid charges levelled against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, giving benefit of doubt, I acquit the appellant and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. 18. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.