Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 529 (JHR)

Srikant Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2013-04-18

R.R.PRASAD

body2013
Judgment R.R. Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/03/2012, whereby the appellant, having been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further to undergo R.I. for two and half years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, with default clause, to undergo S.I. for one year on account of nonpayment of the fine amount. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Kiran Jha, the mother of the complainant Saurabh Kumar Jha (PW8), was running a lady beauty parlor in the name of M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor. She was being assisted by her son Saurabh Kumar Jha in running the said Beauty Parlor. On account of nonpayment of the service tax, notices to show cause (Ext. 44/1) were issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax and Central Excise, Government of Indian, Ranchi, asking it to deposit the amount payable towards service tax and to furnish monthly return in Form No. ST3 and at the same time the Firm was called upon to show cause as to why not penalty be imposed. In compliance of the said notices, service tax return for the period from 16/08/2002 to September, 2002, October, 2002 to March 2003 and April 2003 to September 2003, were filed on 29/01/2004. Since the matter relating to the payment of the penalty had still not been settled, the complainant Saurabh Kumar Jha visited the Office of the Commissioner, Custom and Central Excise, Ranchi on 04/02/2004, where he made a contact with this appellant posted at the time as Superintendent, Central Excise. He had earlier been posted as Inspector, Central Excise. He was dealing with the concern file and as such, Saurabh Kumar Jha requested him to help him out in settling the matter. Upon it, the appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe to settle the matter. When such demand was made, Saurabh Kumar Jha the complainant (PW8) expressed his inability to meet the demand. He was dealing with the concern file and as such, Saurabh Kumar Jha requested him to help him out in settling the matter. Upon it, the appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe to settle the matter. When such demand was made, Saurabh Kumar Jha the complainant (PW8) expressed his inability to meet the demand. On the next day, the complainant came to the office of the S.P., CBI, Ranchi, wherein he submitted a written report (Ext12) to the S.P., CBI. On receiving such written report, S.P., CBI, directed Mukesh Verma (PW12), Sub-Inspector of CBI, to make verification of the allegation. On making verification, finding the allegation to be true, he submitted its report (Ext.18). Thereupon, first information report (Ext.16) was drawn and was registered as RC/05 (A)/2004 (R) under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Thereupon, S.P., CBI, constituted a team consisting of S.K. Sinha (PW10), Vikash Gupta (PW13), both Inspectors of CBI, Mukesh Verma (PW12) Su-Inspector of CBI, Vinod Kumar Pandey and Pankaj Kumar, both Constables of CBI, lead by Sri S.N. Choudhary (PW11) for laying trap. Two independent witnesses, one Amitava Sen, Superintending Engineer, (E & M) Vigilance, CCL, Ranchi (PW5) and Pratap Chandra Pattanaik, Sr. Manager, P.N.B, Zonal Office, Ranchi (PW7), were asked by the CBI Officials to take part in the trap. Thereafter, a pretrap exercises were undertaken, wherein currency notes worth Rs.2000/- of the denomination of Rs.500/- each, produced by the complainant (PW8) were treated with the Phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant with a instruction to him to give it on demand being made by the appellant. The witness Amitava Sen (PW5) was asked to be there alongwith the complainant. On completion of the pre trap exercises, pretrap memorandum(Ext.19) was prepared. Thereafter, the trap team left the office of the CBI and proceeded to the office of the appellant situated at 6th Floor of Mahavir Tower, Main Road, Ranchi, where they reached at about 1.20 p.m. On 05/02/2004. The members of the raiding party took their suitable positions in near vicinity of the office. The complainant accompanied with Amitava Sen came to the office of the appellant where the appellant was found sitting alone. On finding the complainant there, the appellant asked the complainant to come outside the office for having chat. The members of the raiding party took their suitable positions in near vicinity of the office. The complainant accompanied with Amitava Sen came to the office of the appellant where the appellant was found sitting alone. On finding the complainant there, the appellant asked the complainant to come outside the office for having chat. They came out of the room of his office and stopped just near the exit door where PW5 Amitava Sen also came there. The appellant asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the money. When the complainant replied in affirmative, the appellant extended his right hand towards complainant and asked him to pay the money. The complainant took out the money from his pocket and put it on the hand of the appellant. Having received the money, the appellant told the complainant that now his work would be done. Meanwhile, pre fixed signal was given by the complainant. On getting signal, the Members of the raiding party reached over there and then Inspector S.N. Choudhary (PW11) challenged the appellant. On being challenged, the appellant immediately threw the money on the ground. The inspector Vikash Gupta (PW13) And Mukesh Verma (PW12) caught hold of the right hand of the appellant. Meanwhile, P.C. Pattanaik (PW7) picked up the GC notes from the ground and got the numbers of it tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pretrap memo, which was found to be the same. The said currency notes (Ext. VV/3) were put in envelop which was sealed and over it members of the raiding party put their signature. Meanwhile, right hand wash of the appellant was taken, which on treatment got pink. Upon all the formalities being completed, post trap memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, the certain documents on being seized, recovery memorandum (Ext. 20) was prepared. 3. On completion of investigation and on procuring order sanctioning prosecution (Ext.1), charge sheet was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant. 4. In course of time, the appellant was put on trial, during which prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, out of them, PW8 is the complainant Saurabh Kumar Jha, who, in his examination-in-chief, supported the case of the prosecution, to a considerable extent but did not support the case on the point of demand being made by the appellant. Hence, he was declared hostile. Hence, he was declared hostile. PW5 Amitava Sen and PW7 P.C. Pattanaik are the shadow witnesses. PW5 in his evidence has supported the case of the prosecution that on demand being made by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 2000/was paid to him by the complainant, which was recovered. PW1 is the witness, who had accorded sanction for prosecution, whereas PW2 Ram Keshwar Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise Service Tax, PW3 Prabin Kumar Sanjiva Suvarna, Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and PW6 R.N. Rai, are the witnesses on the point of issuance of notices to show cause to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor. PW4 Rajiv Ranjan Mahto is the witness on the point of deposit of Rs.3,000/- by the said firm through Chalan. PW9 Bimal Chand Purkait, Jr. Scientific Officer, CFSL, Kolkata, has proved the report relating to the chemical examination of the solution. PW10 Sanjay Kumar Sinha is the formal witness, whereas PW11 S.N. Choudhary is the Investigating Officer. PWs.12 and 13 are the members of the trap team. 5. Prosecution case on being closed, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the appellant also examined three witnesses and that apart documentary evidences Exts.A, B, B/1, CC V, were produced. Thereupon, the Court on the basis of the evidences brought on the record, did find the appellant guilty for the charge and accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid, which has been challenged in this appeal. 6. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complainant PW8, has never supported the case of the prosecution that the appellant had ever made any demand of the money as reward for showing favour to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor, rather the complainant has categorically testified in his evidence that it was Mr. R.N. Rai, who had put forth the demand. Not only that this witness has also testified that when he approached to this appellant and asked something relating to the penalty, he directed the complainant to ask from Mr. Rai and, thereby, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had made any demand of any gratification. It was further submitted that the evidence of PW8 would go to show that he gave money to this appellant when he was asked by Mr. Rai and, thereby, the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had made any demand of any gratification. It was further submitted that the evidence of PW8 would go to show that he gave money to this appellant when he was asked by Mr. R.N. Rai to give money to the appellant and when the money was given, the appellant was taken by surprise and, therefore, he asked from the complainant as to why he has given money and this piece of evidence of PW8 certainly go to show that the appellant had never made any demand of any gratification. In this regard, it was further submitted that PW5, a shadow witness though in his examination in chief has claimed to have heard that the appellant was asking money from the complainant but his testimony made in para 15 would go to indicate that he had had no occasion to hear the conversation took place in between the complainant and the appellant as according to him, he stood near the exit door, whereas conversation as per the case of the prosecution, took place in the corridor. So far other shadow witness PW7 is concerned, he has not uttered a single word regarding demand. Further it was submitted that there was no occasion for this appellant to put forth any demand as this appellant had no concerned at all with the matter relating to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor, which fact has been admitted by none other than one of the prosecution witnesses PW6. Similarly, PW2 has also testified that this appellant had nothing to do with the file relating to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor. Thus, under the circumstances stated above, the prosecution can be said to have failed utterly to prove the factum of demand and if there is no demand entire edifice of the prosecution case would fall flat and, thereby, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 7. As against this, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the prosecution by adducing the evidences oral as well as documentary, has been able to prove the factum of demand, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted money. 7. As against this, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel appearing for the CBI submits that the prosecution by adducing the evidences oral as well as documentary, has been able to prove the factum of demand, acceptance and the recovery of the tainted money. In this regard, it was further submitted that PW8 the complainant though has been declared hostile as he never supported the case of the prosecution fully, but he has supported some of the facts of the prosecution case which can easily be relied upon by the Court even if the witness turned hostile and if that part of his testimony relating to the demand is accepted that gets corroboration from the evidence of the shadow witness PW5 and that there has been no legal hurdle in accepting part of the evidence of PW8, which the Court on scrutiny finds worth reliable, in view of the decision rendered in a case of "Himanshu @ Chintuversus. The State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2011)2 SCC 36 ]." It was further submitted that part of the evidence of PW8, on the point of demand gets corroborated from the evidence of PW5 and, thereby the prosecution has been ale to establish the factum of demand and that so far evidence relating to the acceptance and recovery of the money is concerned, it is unimpeachable and, thereby the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that on account of non-deposit of the service tax, notices to show cause (Ext. 44/1) were issued to the M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor by which it was called upon to show cause as to why penalty be not imposed. This fact gets proved from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. According to PW2, concerning file relating to M/ s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor was initiated by him and then it was sent to R.N. Rai, who after making endorsement for issuance of the show cause sent the matter before the Assistant Commissioner PW3 under whose signature show cause notices were issued. According to PW3, a copy of the show cause notice was sent to adjudication cell for levying. His evidence further goes to show that this appellant, who had been promoted to the post of Superintendent, had also been given additional charge as Superintendent, Adjudication Cell. According to PW3, a copy of the show cause notice was sent to adjudication cell for levying. His evidence further goes to show that this appellant, who had been promoted to the post of Superintendent, had also been given additional charge as Superintendent, Adjudication Cell. According to PW3, adjudication proceeding by that time had still not been initiated. This witness though has testified that whether that file was dealt with by this appellant or not, he does not remember, but the fact as per his evidence remains that this appellant was also incharge of adjudication cell. The evidence of PW3 relating to file being referred to adjudication cell gets corroboration from the evidence of PW6. PW6 though in his cross-examination says that the appellant had never dealt with the file but taking advantage of this piece of testimony a plea is being taken that the appellant was never concerned with the matter relating to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor but in the facts and circumstances, that piece of evidence hardly supports the case of the defence as PW6 while saying that this appellant had never dealt with the file must have meant that before adjudication proceeding he had not dealt with the file as he was never there in that section rather he had been given charge of the adjudication cell and only when the show cause is issued the matter was referred to the adjudication cell for imposing penalty. After the notices to show cause were issued to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor under the signature of PW3, a copy of it was also sent to adjudication cell and on receiving such copy, endorsement was made by this appellant, which has been marked as Ext. 10, which, as per the evidence of PW6 is in the handwriting of this appellant. Under the circumstances stated above, the plea taken by the defence that the appellant had had no concerned with the file concerning Beauty Parlor is never acceptable, rather the evidences are there, which go to establish that this appellant was very much concerned with the file relating to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor. 9. Coming to other aspect of the matter, it be stated that PW8, in his written report (Ext.12) has categorically made accusation that when he approached to the office and came to in contact with this appellant to settle the matter, this appellant asked for Rs. 9. Coming to other aspect of the matter, it be stated that PW8, in his written report (Ext.12) has categorically made accusation that when he approached to the office and came to in contact with this appellant to settle the matter, this appellant asked for Rs. 2000/as bribe, but he , in his evidence though has accepted about the notice being issued to M/s Khusboo Ladies Beauty Parlor and depositing the service tax through Chalan and coming to the office for settling the matter but from here he has deviated from his earlier statement as he did testify that when he came to the office he met with Mr. R.N. Rai, from whom he wanted to have information in this regard but he asked the complainant to talk to the person sitting in the Chamber. There he met with the appellant from whom he asked about the penalty. Upon it, the appellant told that go and talk to R.N. Rai and then Mr. Rai by pointing to appellant stated that he has to pay Rs.2000/-. Thus, when he did not testify explicitly about the demand being made by the appellant, he was declared hostile. Thereafter, attention was drawn to its earlier statement, wherein he accepted that earlier certain demand had been made. However, on the point of demand, he stated that when he approached to this appellant, he wished the appellant and then said that R.N. Rai has asked him to give money to him. Upon it, he asked for money and then he extended his right hand for having money, which was put on his hand and thereupon, when he felt that CBI personnels are coming, he threw the money. 10. Under the circumstances, question does arise as to whether that part of testimony of PW8, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, could be availed by the prosecution, which is in consonance with the statement made earlier. 11. 10. Under the circumstances, question does arise as to whether that part of testimony of PW8, who has been declared hostile by the prosecution, could be availed by the prosecution, which is in consonance with the statement made earlier. 11. More or less similar question fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of "Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration, [ AIR 1976 (SC) 294 ]", wherein their Lordships after taking into account several decisions did hold herein under: "From the above conspectus, it emerges clear that even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court, by the party calling him, his evidence cannot as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discredited or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. It the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence of the record, that part of his testimony which he finds to be creditworthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discrediated, the Judge should, as matter of prudence, discard his evidence in toto." 12. Keeping in view the aforesaid principle it was further held, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as hereunder: “Nor was the High Court competent to use the statements of these witnesses recorded by the police during investigation, for seeking assurance for the prosecution story. Such use of the police statements is not permissible. Under the Proviso to Section 162, Cr. P.C. such statements can be used only for the purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner indicated in Section 145, Evidence Act, and for on other purpose. They cannot be used for the purpose of seeking corroboration or assurance for the testimony of the witness in court.” 13. Under the Proviso to Section 162, Cr. P.C. such statements can be used only for the purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner indicated in Section 145, Evidence Act, and for on other purpose. They cannot be used for the purpose of seeking corroboration or assurance for the testimony of the witness in court.” 13. Thus, it has been held that even in a case of hostile witness that part of the testimony which the court finds creditworthy can be accepted but if the whole of the testimony of the witness gets discredited, the evidence is required to be discarded. 14. Here in the instant case, PW8 never seems to have resited completely from his earlier statement. The witness seems to be intact on all the points except on the point of demand where he tried to make out a case that the money was given to this appellant at the instance of R.N. Rai. In other words, he tried to put forth his case that it was R.N. Rai, who had mad demand of the money but this part of the testimony is not worth reliable in view of the inconsistency of the statement made with respect to demand as earlier the statement was there in the written report that it was the appellant, who had put forth the demand. Therefore, it is not the case where entire testimony can be said to be impugned. In such situation, that part of the testimony of this witness can be used, which appears to be credit worthy. 15. In this regard, I may again refer to the evidence of this witness, who, in para5 of his examination in chief has stated that it was Mr. Rai, who after pointing towards appellant said that he will have to pay Rs.2000/- as bribe. Immediately thereafter attention was drawn that no such statement has been made in his written complaint. Upon it, he admitted that in the complaint he has written that it was appellant, who had demanded the money, which part of the evidence cannot be used against the appellant but immediately thereafter he testifies that it was the appellant, who had asked money by saying that if the money is not paid, penalty would be imposed. Upon it, he admitted that in the complaint he has written that it was appellant, who had demanded the money, which part of the evidence cannot be used against the appellant but immediately thereafter he testifies that it was the appellant, who had asked money by saying that if the money is not paid, penalty would be imposed. The factum of demand made by the appellant gets corroboration from the evidence of shadow witness PW5, who has categorically deposed that during pretrap exercises, he was asked by PW11 to be there alongwith the complainant when the complainant approaches the appellant for giving money. Further he has deposed that when the team reached at the office everybody took their position and he accompanied the complainant and came to the Chamber of the appellant where he was sitting alone. As soon as he saw the complainant, he asked him to come outside of the Chamber. They came out of the Chamber and, hence he also followed them and after coming out of the room they stopped in the corridor where the appellant asked from the complainant as to whether he had brought money. When he replied in affirmative, the appellant by extending his right hand asked to give money, which was given and then he told to the complainant that now his job would be done. Immediately thereafter when the members of the raiding party reached over there, the appellant threw the money on the ground but two of the witnesses, i.e. PWs11 and 12, of the raiding party caught hold of the hands and then the hand wash was taken, which was treated with the solution. On treatment, it turns to pink. Nothing seems to have been elicited so as to disbelieve the testimony of this witness on the point of demand. So far recovery of the tainted money is concerned, that fact has been corroborated by the witnesses examined on the point by the prosecution. 16. Under the circumstances, I do find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond any reasonable doubt and, hence, the trial court seems to be absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction for the offence under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act though both the offences seem to have been committed in single transaction. Still in view of the decision rendered in the case of “State represented by Inspector of Police, Pudukottai, T.N. versus A. Parthiban, reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 520.”, one can be convicted for the offence under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act even if the Act was committed in single transaction. It has been held that every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, it has further been held that as the offence is one which cause under two different sections providing different punishments, the offender should not be punished with a more severe punishment than the court could award to the person for any one of the two offences. It be noticed that the minimum punishment under Section 7 is six months and the minimum punishment under Section 13 (1)(d) is one year. 17. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and also the fact that the appellant has faced rigor of the trial for considerably long period it would be appropriate for the ends of justice to sentence him for six months for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to one year for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act without any modification with respect to sentence of fine imposed by the trial court for the said offences. Accordingly, with the modification on the point of sentence, this appeal stands dismissed.