Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1580 (JHR)

Rabindra Nath v. State of Jharkhand C. B. I.

2012-11-02

JAYA ROY

body2012
JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 10(A)/96(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 been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-in default of which, he is to undergo R.I. for one month and further convicted for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the P.C. Act and 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.200/-in default of payment of fine, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and both the sentences will run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that a telephonic information through a source on 15.6.1996 was received. As per information, one Rabindra Nath (Appellant), Assistant, Personnel Department, Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro Steel City, has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/-from one Sadanand, Khalasi of G.M.M. Department of Bokaro Steel Plant and has agreed to accept the part payment. At the first instance for proceeding and forwarding the application of the complainant for advance L.T.C. The S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi directed P.K. Panigrahi, Inspector, C.B.I., Ranchi to take legal action in the matter. A team was constituted. P.K. Panigrahi and other officers and constables reached at Bokaro Steel City in the night on 16.06.1996. The complainant, Sadanand Paswan met the inspector, P.K. Panigrahi and other team members in the morning of 17.06.1996 and gave complaint signed by him making the allegation that he had submitted an application for sanction of advance L.T.C. This has been proposed in his department and has been forwarded to the Personnel Department for approval and for forwarding it to the Accounts Department. The matter was being dealt by Rabindra Nath (appellant) Assistant in Personnel Department. The complainant had met him on 14.06.96 in connection with the process of application but Rabindra Nath (appellant) asked to pay a bribe of Rs.500/-and then the work will be done. The matter was being dealt by Rabindra Nath (appellant) Assistant in Personnel Department. The complainant had met him on 14.06.96 in connection with the process of application but Rabindra Nath (appellant) asked to pay a bribe of Rs.500/-and then the work will be done. After a lot of request, Rabindra Nath (appellant) asked the complainant to pay Rs.100/-as part payment on 17.06.96 and further said to pay the balance amount of Rs.400/-after the work is done. The matter was thoroughly enquired by P.K. Panigrahi, Inspector and that independent witnesses were arranged. Pre-trap formalities were done. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused Rabindra Nath (appellant) who demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.100/-and the appellant was caught red handed. In this sequence, pre-trap memorandum and post trap memorandum were recorded and a first information report against the appellant was instituted bearing R.C. Case No. 10A/96(R) dated 18.06.1996 for the offence under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Narayan Vijay Kumar is the formal witness, P.W.2 Yogesh Narayan Chaturvedi is independent witness, P.W.3 Krishna Prasad is another independent witness, P.W.4 Sadanand Paswan is the complainant, P.W.5 Bimlendu Das is the Chemical Examiner, P.W.6 Prasanna Kumar Panigrahi is the Investigating Officer and P.W.7 Anil Kumar Srivastava is also a formal witness. Defence has not examined any witness on its behalf. 4. Prosecution has exhibited a number of documents amongst which exhibit-1 is the sanction order, exhibit-2 to 2/63 are the signatures on the different documents, exhibit-3 is Endorsement and signature of the accused. Rabindra Nath on the memorandum of recovery, exhibit-4 is Report and forwarding letter, exhibit-5 Pre-trap memorandum, exhibit-6 is Post Trap memorandum, exhibit-7 is F.I.R. Prosecution has made exhibits a number of materials i.e. Ext-I Bottle containing demonstration wash, Ext-II Envelop containing treated pieces of papers, Ext-III Envelop containing P. Powder, Ext-IV Bottle containing R.H. Wash of the accused, Ext-V Envelop containing G.C. Note of Rs.100/-one piece, Ext-VI G.C. Note of Rs.100/-(one), Ext-VII Bottle containing shirt wash, Ext-VIII Envelop containing shirt of the accused, Ext-IX shirt of the accused, Ext-X for Identification L.T.C. Application. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the defence of the appellant is that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant never demanded or accepted any bribe money from the complainant and nothing has been recovered from his possession. He has further contended that there is no evidence which shows that the appellant has demanded and accepted the bribe money and the same recovered from his possession. The accused appellant in his statements made under Section 313 Cr. P.C., has denied all the allegations made against him. 6. In this case whether the accused appellant has committed the offence or prosecution has established the charge against the accused appellant, the scrutiny of the evidence of the witnesses specially material witnesses is very much necessary. 7. P.W.4 is the complainant himself. He has stated in his examination in chief that he was working as Khalashi in Bokaro Steel Plant. He had given application on 11.6.1996 for getting L.T.C. facility and at that time the accused appellant namely Rabindra Nath was dealing Assistant. When he met with Rabindra Nath in connection with his L.T.C. application then he demanded Rs.500/-as bribe money. He has reported this matter to C.B.I. on 17.06.1996. 8. From the evidence of the P.W.4 (the complainant) it has come that P.W.4 has informed the C.B.I. authority regarding demand of bribe money by the accused appellant only on 17.06.96. Before that, he has not informed the same to the C.B.I. authority. It is also clear from his evidence that no preliminary enquiry was made by any of the officer of the C.B.I. which is very much essential according to Clause 9.1 of the C.B.I. Manual. It has also come that the entire trap proceeding including pre-trap and post trap was done on the same day i.e. 17.06.96. Utter surprise, all the witnesses including the independent witnesses have assembled in the Hotel for the trap proceeding at about 9 to 9.30 A.M. on the same day. There is no explanation of the prosecution that within such a short period how the prosecution had arranged the entire thing. 9. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the independent witnesses. P.W.3 was the employee of Hindustan Steel Production Bokaro, has clearly stated in his evidence that he did not hear any talk between the complainant and the accused appellant though he was closed to them. 9. P.Ws. 2 and 3 are the independent witnesses. P.W.3 was the employee of Hindustan Steel Production Bokaro, has clearly stated in his evidence that he did not hear any talk between the complainant and the accused appellant though he was closed to them. He further stated in his evidence that he was informed by the complainant that the money has already been given to the accused appellant. Therefore, it is clear that P.W.3 being one of the independent witness neither he heard the demand nor he has seen the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused appellant. P.W.3 has not stated anything regarding recovery of the bribe money from the accused appellant. Thus, the P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case. The another eye witness P.W.2 has submitted that he was posted as Assistant in Personnel Department on 17.06.96. On that day his senior officer asked him to meet Mr. P.K. Panigrahi in Bokaro Hotel. Accordingly, he went there and reached there at about 9.30 A.M. At that time in the said Hotel, Rajvir Singh S.I., (not examined) the complainant S.N. Paswan and Krishna Prasad (P.W.3) and Mr. Panigrahi (P.W.6) all were present there. Counsel of the appellant has submitted that though this witness has supported the prosecution case in his statement but there are number of contradictions in his evidence. Moreover, it is not clear when the P.W.4 informed the C.B.I. authority on 17.06.96 but on the same day by 9.30 A.M. all the aforesaid persons assembled in the Hotel for the trap proceeding. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out a number of contradictions in the evidence of the complainant independent witnesses and P.W.6 (the I.O.). He has further submitted that according to the evidence of the complainant that the C.B.I. authority after caught hold of the accused appellant, took him in the room of Anup Kumar Hembram, Personnel Manager and in presence of said Anup Kumar Hembram, money has been recovered from his pocket but the said Anup Kumar Hembram has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that though it is stated by the complainant that the accused appellant after taking money from him, kept the same in his left side of upper pocket of his shirt but the shirt which was produced before the trial court, was not having any upper pocket in the left side of his shirt. He has further pointed out that P.W.2 who is independent witness has stated in his evidence that he has not signed in any paper/document in the C.B.I. office on 17.6.96 though he was there (in the C.B.I. office) till 5.30 P.M. Therefore, all these things cast a great doubt on the prosecution case as according to the I.O. that all these witnesses were present at the time of post trap proceeding and all of them put their signature on the post trap memorandum dated 17.6.96. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has submitted that P.W. 6 Mr. Panigrahi (I.O.) has stated in his evidence that he was informed by Mr. N.C Dondiyal, S.P., C.B.I. He informed him that he has received a telephonic information on 16.06.96 that one Rabindra Nath (accused appellant) who was an Assistant, Personnel Department, Bokaro Steel Plant, has demanded illegal gratification from Sadanand Paswan and has agreed to receive part payment. It is also contended by Mr. Khan that thereafter Mr. Panigrahi (I.O.) made all the arrangement for the trap proceeding and the independent witnesses and other persons all assembled in the Bokaro Hotel in the night of 16.06.96 i.e. on the same date as it is stated by Mr. Panigrahi in his evidence. 12. From the record, I find both the independent witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 and also the other witnesses have stated in their evidence that they reached Bokaro Hotel at about 9.00 to 9.30 A.M. on 17.06.96. Thus, the statements of the P.W.6 the I.O. is quite contradictory with the evidence of other witnesses. Furthermore, there is no whisper about any preliminary enquiry by any of the authority. Mr. N.S. Dondiyal has not been examined in this case and no reason has been assigned Singh Managing Director Sail, Bokaro Steel Plant who sanctioned for the prosecution, has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that before passing a sanction order, he has not considered all the materials collected against the accused appellant neither all the materials were placed before him. It is also submitted that before passing a sanction order, he has not considered all the materials collected against the accused appellant neither all the materials were placed before him. From the record, I find that P.W.1 who has typed the sanction order has been examined and proved the sanction order (Exhibit-1). The sanction order itself clearly shows that after considering all the materials collected against the accused appellant, sanction has been granted. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the sanction order for the same. 13. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that K.A.P. Singh Managing Director, SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant who sanctioned for the prosecution, has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also submitted that before passing a sanction order, he has not considered all the materials collected against the accused appellant nether all the materials were placed before him. From the record, I find that P.W. 1 who has typed the sanction order has been examined and proved the sanction order (Exhibit-1). The sanction order itself clearly shows that after considering all the materials collected against the accused appellant, sanction has been granted. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the sanction order. 14. After scrutinizing evidence of the witnesses and other materials on records, I find the following facts have come in the evidence:- (i) P.W.4 has informed the C.B.I. authority regarding the demand of money by the accused appellant only on 17.6.1996 before that he has not informed the same to the C.B.I. authority. On the other hand P.W.6 Mr. Panigrahi (I.A.) has stated in his evidence that he was informed by N.C .Dondiyal, S.P., C.B.I. that he has received a telephonic information on 16.6.96 that the accused appellant has demanded illegal gratification from Sadanand Paswan the complainant. Furthermore, Mr. Panigrahi (I.O) has stated in his evidence that he made all the arrangement for the trap proceeding on the same day i.e. 16.6.96 and the independent witnesses and all other persons assembled in the Bokaro Hotel in the night of 16.6.96. whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 and also other witnesses have stated in their evidence that they reached in the Bokaro Hotel at about 9.00 to 9.30 A.M. on 17.6.96. whereas P.Ws.2 and 3 and also other witnesses have stated in their evidence that they reached in the Bokaro Hotel at about 9.00 to 9.30 A.M. on 17.6.96. Thus, the evidence of the witnesses are wholly contradictory with the evidence of the I.O. (ii) Admittedly no preliminary enquiry was made by any of the officer of the C.B.I. which is absolutely essential according to the Clause 9.1 of the C.B.I. Manual. (iii) When the P.W.4 informed the C.B.I. authority regarding the demand of bribe money by the accused appellant on 17.6.96, all the arrangement was made for trap proceeding including Pre- trap and Post trap proceeding on 17.06.96 and the same was done on the same day and furthermore, all the witnesses including the independent witnesses have assembled at about 9.00 to 9.30 A.M. on the same day. It is very difficult to believe how the prosecution could arranged the entire thing in such a short time. (iv) P.W.3 being one of the independent witnesses has very specifically stated in his evidence that neither he heard the demand nor he has seen the acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant. In fact, he has not supported the prosecution case. (v) There are number of major contradictions of the evidence of the witnesses with each other. (vi) Mr. Dondiyal, S.P., C.B.I., who is the person according to the I.O. informed him for the first time that he has received a telephonic information regarding demand of illegal gratification by the accused appellant from Sadanand Paswan, has not been examined by the prosecution and no reason has been assigned for the same. (vii) Counsel of the appellant has pointed out the number of contradictory statements in the evidence of P.W.4 (the complainant), P.W.2 independent witness and P.W.6 the I.O. Thus, the said contradictions also cast great doubt in the prosecution case. (viii) The accused appellant was taken by the C.B.I. authority to the room of A.K. Hembram Personnel, Manager in presence of whom money has been recovered from the accused appellant but the said A.K. Hembram has not been examined by the prosecution without given any reason for the same. Non examination of such person goes against the prosecution case. 15. Considering all these aspects stated above, in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Non examination of such person goes against the prosecution case. 15. Considering all these aspects stated above, in my opinion the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It is well settled principle of law that if there is any doubt, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused person. Therefore, I giving benefit of doubt, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII-cum- Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 10(A)/96(R). 16. The accused appellant is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.