Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 780 (JHR)

Chandra Shekhar Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-22

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT Prashant Kumar, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07/08/2001 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 3(A) of 1996, whereby and where under, the appellant was convicted under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 & 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the offence under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that one Ghanshyam Prasad Satnami (P.W.7) had lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Ranchi stating therein that his father died, while working in Karkatta Colliery of C.C.L. Thereafter, P.W.7 had applied for payment of Provident Fund and other post retiral-cum- death benefits of his father. It is then stated that he was told by the concerned Clerk of Karakatta Colliery that -2-the service book of his father was missing. Accordingly, the concern clerk suggested P.W.7 to bring the dispatch number of his father's service book from his earlier place of posting i.e. Dakra Colliery, so that his prayer for payment of Provident Fund and other retiral benefits be processed. Accordingly, P.W.7 met P.W.1, Deputy Personal Manager at Dakra Colliery, who told him that his father's service book is not available, therefore, it is required to be reconstructed. Accordingly, P.W.1 suggested P.W.7 to meet the appellant, Shri C.S.Jha, U.D.C., Dakra Project, CCL, who will reconstruct the service book. It is further stated that P.W.7 met and requested the appellant C.S. Jha for reconstructing the service book of his father, who told him to meet him again after 15 days. After 15 days, when P.W.7 met the appellant (Shri Jha), who demanded Rs 500/- as a bribe for sending the service book of his father to Karakatta Colliery. Accordingly, the present complaint filed with the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Ranchi. 3. After receiving the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Ranchi get the complaint verified. Thereafter, asked the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. for arranging a trap, so that appellant be caught redhanded while demanding and taking bribe. Accordingly, the present complaint filed with the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Ranchi. 3. After receiving the said complaint, the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Ranchi get the complaint verified. Thereafter, asked the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. for arranging a trap, so that appellant be caught redhanded while demanding and taking bribe. Accordingly, a trap was arranged in presence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 and appellant was caught redhanded while demanding and taking bribe from P.W.7. Accordingly, appellant was arrested. 4. After completing the investigation, the C.B.I. submitted charge sheet against the appellant under sections 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After receipt of the aforesaid charge sheet, learned Special Judge, C.B.I. took cognizance of the offence and, thereafter, he framed charge against the appellant vide his order dated 18.12.1997 under section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Aforesaid charge read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution had examined altogether 10 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution had also brought on record various documentary evidence in support of its case. After closure of the case of prosecution, statement of accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which his defence is that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It appears that learned court below after hearing learned counsels for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above by his judgment dated 07.08.2001 against which present appeal filed. 6. Shri B.M. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that there was no demand of bribe made by the appellant nor he received any illegal gratification. He further submits that, in fact, P.W.7 had forcibly put Rs.500/- in the pocket of appellant and, thereafter, the Investigating Officer and other persons had out the money from the pocket of the appellant and falsely implicated him in the present case. It is submitted that there is no independent witness to support the factum of demand and taking of money from P.W.7. Accordingly, he submitted that offence under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out. Thus, he submitted that appellant be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 7. It is submitted that there is no independent witness to support the factum of demand and taking of money from P.W.7. Accordingly, he submitted that offence under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out. Thus, he submitted that appellant be acquitted from the charges levelled against him. 7. On the other hand, Md. Mokhtar Khan, learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that in the instant case, appellant has not denied the recovery of money from his pocket. However, the appellant stated that said money was forcibly put in his pocket by P.W.7 (informant). Shri Khan submits that there is presumption against the appellant under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, thus, in absence of rebuttal evidence, it will be presumed that appellant had taken bribe from the informant. Shri Khan submits that in the instant case, appellant had not adduced any evidence in rebuttal. On the other hand, prosecution had brought on record sufficient evidence to show that appellant had demanded bribe and, accepted bribe money. Thus, the court below had rightly convicted the appellant under sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 8. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case. 9. P.W.1 is the Senior Personal Officer, CCL, Piparwar Project. This witness has stated that appellant was Incharge for keeping and maintaining service book. During cross-examination, he has stated that on his instruction, Shri Jha (appellant) had prepared the service book. Thus, from the evidence of this witness, it is clear that it is the official duty of the appellant for preparing and/or reconstructing the service book of informant's father. 10. P.W.7 is the informant who alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs.500/- as bribe for sending the reconstructed service book to Karkatta Colliery and, thereafter, he has stated that he lodged a complaint with the C.B.I., as he did not want to give bribe to the appellant. P.W.10 had stated that after verification of complaint, he arranged a trap in presence of P.W.2 and P.W.6, who are independent witnesses. P.W.2 and P.W.6 had stated that they along with C.B.I. Officer went to the office of appellant and they further stated that in their presence appellant has demanded Rs.500/- from the informant (P.W.7), who paid aforeaid amount to the appellant, which was later on recovered from him by P.W.10. P.W.2 and P.W.6 had stated that they along with C.B.I. Officer went to the office of appellant and they further stated that in their presence appellant has demanded Rs.500/- from the informant (P.W.7), who paid aforeaid amount to the appellant, which was later on recovered from him by P.W.10. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.10, it is clear that appellant demanded Rs.500/- from the informant ass bribe and he took the said amount for sending service book to Karkatta Colliery. Under the aforesaid fact and circumstance, I find that the appellant had taken illegal gratification for discharging his official duty. Since, aforesaid amount recovered from the possession of the appellant, therefore, there is a presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that appellant had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. 11. In the instant case, appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. had stated that he had not demanded any bribe and, in fact, informant put forcibly Rs. 500/- in his pocket, which was later on recovered. In support of this |assertion, appellant had not adduced any evidence. Under the said circumstance, I find that there is no rebuttal evidence adduced on -6-behalf of the appellant. In that view of the matter, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned court below, which requires any interference by this Court. 12. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 13. It appears that appellant is on bail. His bail bond is hereby cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the court below to serve out the sentence. Appeal dismissed.