Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1208 (ALL)

Ram Narain Pandey v. State of U. P.

2023-05-01

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

body2023
JUDGMENT : DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Narain Pandey, appellant in person and Sri Ratnendu Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. The present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi in Special Criminal Case No. 110 of 1997, State vs. Ram Narain Pandey and Another, arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 1995, whereby the learned trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment and under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months additional imprisonment with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. As per the prosecution case, the accused-appellant in the year 1995 was posted as Account Officer in the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Fatehpur and the co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (since dead) was posted as Account Clerk in the said office. The complainant, Ram Prasad Gupta was working as Assistant Teacher in the year 1995 in Adesh Shodh Vidyalaya, Chivlahan, Fatehpur. Salary, arrears of Dearness Allowance and other dues of the teachers and employees of the aforesaid school were due and payable to them. The bills for payment of salary, arrears of Dearness Allowance and other dues were sent by the said school to the office of the Account Officer. The amount of these bills was not paid and both the accused demanded 10% amount of the bills as bribe for processing the bills for payment. The complainant and other teachers and employees were not willing to pay the bribe amount. However, under pressure they agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the accused-appellant and Rs.1,000/- to co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) as bribe amount. This amount was to be paid before payment of the bills and rest of the amount was to be paid after the payment was received by the complainant and other teachers and employees of the school. However, under pressure they agreed to pay Rs.4,000/- to the accused-appellant and Rs.1,000/- to co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) as bribe amount. This amount was to be paid before payment of the bills and rest of the amount was to be paid after the payment was received by the complainant and other teachers and employees of the school. The bribe amount was to be paid at the residence of the accused-appellant and he gave his residential address in his hand writing on a piece of paper to the complainant. 4. Since the complainant and other teachers did not want to give the bribe amount to the accused, the complainant wrote a complaint dated 1.5.1995 to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad. The said complaint after necessary inquiry from the complainant, was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad for conducting the trap proceedings. Sri Prahlad Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad asked the complainant to come to his office with amount of Rs.5,000/- along with witnesses on 5.5.1995. The complainant along with bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- with witnesses Budhi Prakash Maurya and Ram Vilas Prajapati went to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad. The address given by the accused-appellant in his hand writing on a piece of paper to the complainant was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad and Rs.5,000/- i.e. the bribe amount, out of which Rs.4,000/- to be paid to the accused-appellant and Rs.1,000/- to be paid to co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) was also given to him. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Allahabad put his small initials on the said currency notes and they were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Rs.5,000/- were separated in two bundles i.e. Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/-. Thereafter, pre-trap proceedings were conducted. 5. On asking, the accused-appellant told the complainant that he should come at 11.30 AM to his office and the work would be done there. On 6.5.1995 on asking of the accused-appellant that whether the complainant had brought the bribe amount, the complainant said ‘yes’ he had bought the bribe amount. The accused-appellant asked co-accused, Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) to bring the bills etc. of the School to his office. Co-accused, Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) came to the office of the accused-appellant and sat on a chair. The accused-appellant asked the complainant to make payment of the convenience fee, which was agreed. The accused-appellant asked co-accused, Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) to bring the bills etc. of the School to his office. Co-accused, Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) came to the office of the accused-appellant and sat on a chair. The accused-appellant asked the complainant to make payment of the convenience fee, which was agreed. The complainant gave Rs.4,000/- bribe amount to the accused-appellant and Rs.1,000/- to co-accused, Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased). Both the accused took the money and counted it. After counting the money, the accused-appellant said that the work would be done in a day or two. On indication, the accused-appellant and co-accused were caught red handed with the bribe amount by the trap team. Their hand wash tuned pink. Both the accused were brought to the police station and the case was registered against them. Initially, the investigation of the case was given to Anand Kumar Shukla and later on it was Ram Naresh Mishra, who finalized the investigation. 6. After completing the investigation, sanction for prosecution was given by the competent authority in respect of the two accused. Vide order dated 22.9.1999 charges against the two accused were framed in respect of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, which they denied and claimed trial. 7. In support of the prosecution case, 11 witnesses were examined, who were as under: PW-1, Ram Prasad Gupta, complainant PW-2, Ram Vilas Prajapati; PW-3, Ram Sunder Tripathi, Sub-Inspector PW-4, Ved Murthy Bhatt, Police Commissioner PW-5, Girish Chandra Dwivedi, Clerk, Adesh Shodh School PW-6, Rajmani Mishra, Inspector PW-7, K.N. Singh, Superintendence, Education Directorate PW-8, Rajendra Ram Sharma PW-9, Ram Naresh Mishra PW-10, Shekhar Agarwal, Principal Secretary, Government of U.P. PW-11, Anand Kumar Shukla, Inspector 8. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence as mentioned in the judgment and order of the trial court besides material evidence of the hand wash etc and the currency notes of bribe money to prove its case. 9. Accused-appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied any demand of bribe amount from the complainant or any other teacher or staff in respect of the payment of the bills of the teachers and staff of the Adesh Shodh School. He said that the bills for payment of the teachers and employees of the said school were brought before him for the first time on the date of incident. He said that the bills for payment of the teachers and employees of the said school were brought before him for the first time on the date of incident. It was also said that the appointment of the teachers was in dispute. No budget was allotted for payment of the bills. The bills were three years old and, therefore, the same were not payable as being time barred. It is said that he did not give any residential address on a piece of paper to the complainant asking him to pay the bribe amount at his residence. He was falsely implicated and he did not accept any bribe amount nor was he paid any money nor any amount was recovered from him. His hand wash did not turn pink and false case was registered against him. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari had appointed 200 teachers illegally, and he had objected for such illegal appointments. The Basic Shiksha Adhikari sent anti-social elements to assault the accused-appellant. He was also threatened for which he had given an application to the higher authorities. For this reason, in conspiracy, trap proceedings were conducted against him. It was further said that the accused-appellant did not have the power to clear the bills which were illegal and time barred. He denied the prosecution case. 10. Co-accused, Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. said that he was wrongly and falsely implicated. He did not demand any amount for processing the bills of teachers and employees of the school. The witnesses have given false evidence. He did not sit in the office of the Accounts Officer. No money was recovered from him and he being the Clerk in the office of the Accounts Section, he was falsely implicated. 11. The accused in their defence, examined Dr. Smt. Amrita Pandey, DW-1, Bachhu, DW-2 and Jai Kumar Singh, DW-3. 12. The trial court after considering the evidence and taking into consideration the submissions of the prosecution and the defence, passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned above. 13. 11. The accused in their defence, examined Dr. Smt. Amrita Pandey, DW-1, Bachhu, DW-2 and Jai Kumar Singh, DW-3. 12. The trial court after considering the evidence and taking into consideration the submissions of the prosecution and the defence, passed the judgment and order of conviction and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned above. 13. The question which arises for consideration, is whether the prosecution was able to prove the demand and acceptance of alleged bribe amount by the accused-appellant from the complainant beyond reasonable doubt to bring home the charge for commission of offence by the accused-appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption act. 14. The bribe amount was allegedly demanded by the accused-appellant for himself and co-accused Santosh Kumar Srivastava (deceased) for payment of pending bills of the teachers and employees of the Adesh Shodh Vidyalaya, and the bill amount was Rs.2,81,000/-. The complainant said that payment of salary was not being released for 3-4 years and in this respect he met the co-accused, who asked the complainant to meet the accused-appellant at his residence. The salary of the complainant and teachers Budhi Prasad, Gopal Krishna Tiwari, Sureshanand Tiwari, Rawal Das and Ram Vilas Prajapati from October, 1991 to February, 1992 of Rs.78,839/- suspension allowance of Nandlal Srivastava of Rs.8,991/- and the remaining amount of 14 teachers of Rs.9,130/- Dearness Allowance @ 5% of entire staff from July, 1993 to September, 1993 of Rs.3,762/- and Dearness Allowance @ 7% from January, 1994 to May, 1994 of Rs.7,195/- was to be paid. 15. The accused-appellant had taken defence that the bills of the said college for which he allegedly demanded the bribe amount, were not pre-audited and their payment was not possible and, when the payment could not have been made, there was no question of any demand of bribe amount for payment of the said bills. 16. The complainant in his cross-examination had said that the salary from October, 1991 to February, 1992 was outstanding and the salary could not have been paid to him for not receiving the grant-in-aid from the Government. For release of this payment, the complainant had given an application and the payment for this period was made to him in the month of Mkay, 1995 after grant-in-aid was received. 17. For release of this payment, the complainant had given an application and the payment for this period was made to him in the month of Mkay, 1995 after grant-in-aid was received. 17. PW-5, Girish Chandra Dwivedi, Clerk, Adesh Shodh School in his evidence had said that he had prepared the bills and after it got signed by the Principal, the same was signed by the Manager of the college and, thereafter, submitted to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. After the Basic Shiksha Adhikari countersigned the bill, it would be given to the concerned clerk for preparing the cheque, which was sent to the Account Officer and after the Account Officer puts his signature, cheque would be issued. He said that the bill of Rs.78,839/- was given in respect of the salary etc. and other payments for the years 19911993 was made in the month of March, 1993. He also said that in the record of the college, the bills in respect of Rs.2,81,000/- which were allegedly sent to the office of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, were not available. 18. None of the witnesses had said that the grant-in-aid was released and it was available for payment of the bills for which the accused appellant had demanded the bribe money. Unless the grant in aid was released and available for payment, the payment could not have been made. 19. PW-9, Rajendra Sharma, retired Basic Shiksha Adhikari in his evidence said that he had no knowledge that whether any grant-in-aid in respect of the payment of the bills of the college for the years 19911993 were received or not. Rs.91,000/- grant-in-aid was received in the month of May, which was in respect of the payment of the current salary. 20. The Court has summoned Pramod Kumar Singh, who was posted at the time of trial as Finance and Accounts Officer in the office of the Basic Shksha Adhikari, Fatehpur as a court witness, who said that for financial year 1994-1995 i.e. upto March, 1995, budget of Rs.91,394/- was available for payment. There was no problem for making payment in respect of the bills upto 31.3.1995, which were countersigned by the Basic Shiskha Adhikari. As the payment was not made from the said budget, the amount was deposited in PLA account as the same could have been lapsed by the end of the financial year. There was no problem for making payment in respect of the bills upto 31.3.1995, which were countersigned by the Basic Shiskha Adhikari. As the payment was not made from the said budget, the amount was deposited in PLA account as the same could have been lapsed by the end of the financial year. The payment of Rs.47,000/- from March, 1995 for employees of Adesh Shodh Vidyalaya was made from the PLA account. Thereafter, Rs.44,374/- was available in the PLA account. This witness has also not said that funds were available for making payment of the financial years 1991-1993. He did not dispute the fact that the bills for financial years 1991-1993 were time barred. However, he said that the time barred bills could also be paid after taking orders from the competent officer. 21. After pre-audit and sanction by the competent authority, the bills could have been paid. The accused-appellant was not the competent officer to sanction and make the payment of the time barred bills. When the accused-appellant was not in a position to make the payment of time barred bills, the prosecution story becomes suspicious that the accused-appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe for processing the time barred bills of the complainant and other teachers. 22. DW-2, Bachhu, Peon, said that no trap proceedings were completed in the office of the accused-appellant, but he was taken to the police station. Therefore, proceedings also become suspicious. 23. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence of the witnesses on record, this Court finds that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is suspicion regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe amount, for which the accused-appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, I am of the view that the accused-appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 24. Thus, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment and order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi in Special Criminal Case No. 110 of 1997, State Vs. Ram Narain Pandey and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 1995, is hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act giving benefit of doubt. Accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. Ram Narain Pandey and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 210 of 1995, is hereby set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act giving benefit of doubt. Accused-appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender unless wanted in any other case. Accused-appellant is, however, directed to submit the bail bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned under Section 437 Cr.P.C. which will remain valid for a period of six months. 25. The trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith.