JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2024 (sentence passed on 26.07.2024) passed by Sri Prakash Jha, learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Dumka in connection with Vigilance (Special) P.S. Case No. 10 of 2010, holding the appellant Shibajee Bhagat guilty of offences under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo R.I. for four years, alongwith a fine of rupees 60,000/- for each of the offences. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant/complainant Tarak Nath Mandal alleging therein that he had demolished his old house and started constructing a new house at plot no. 433 at Nala but some persons out of prejudice, filed an application before Circle Office, Nala and got the construction work stopped. On notice, he produced all the documents pertaining to the aforesaid land to the Circle Officer and prayed that he may be allowed to resume the construction of his house. It is alleged that the appellant who was working as Circle Officer, Nala demanded rupees 50,000/- for issuing an order of resumption of construction work. Later on, the demand was scaled down to rupees 40,000/-. The informant made a complaint addressed to Inspector General, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi with regard to the demand of bribe. Subsequently, on the direction of Dy. S.P.-Cum-officer-in-charge of Vigilance Bureau, Sri Nawal Kishore Prasad, submitted a verification report, after verifying the matter on 31.03.2010 to the effect that on 09.03.2010, he made verification at official residence of Circle Officer, Nala, where the accused demanded bribe from the complainant. In the verification report the charges levelled against the accused were found to be true. Subsequently, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 10 of 2010 under sections 07/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on 31.03.2010. A trap team was constituted. G.C. Notes Memorandum was prepared and on 01.04.2010 during the course of trap, tainted amount to the tune of rupees 30,000/- was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Subsequently, Vigilance P.S. Case No. 10 of 2010 under sections 07/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on 31.03.2010. A trap team was constituted. G.C. Notes Memorandum was prepared and on 01.04.2010 during the course of trap, tainted amount to the tune of rupees 30,000/- was recovered from the possession of the appellant. When his both hands were immersed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink due to the reason of presence of phenolphthalein powder in his hands. Accordingly, the appellant Shibajee Bhagat was arrested. 4. After investigation police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under sections 7 and 13 (2) r/w Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 08.07.2010. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 08.07.2010. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution has altogether examined ten witnesses viz; S.No. Name Description 1 P.W.1 Bishambhar Mandal Witness to seizure 2 P.W.2 Arup Mandal Witness to seizure 3 P.W.3 Taraknath Mandal Complainant 4 P.W.4 Nawal Kishor Prasad Verifying officer 5 P.W.5 Jitendra Kumar Trap Team Member 6 P.W.6 Tuntun Prasad Singh Trap Team Member 7 P.W.7 Arun Kumar Special Magistrate 8 P.W.8 Shankar Oroan Trap Team Member 9 P.W.9 Dasrath Chandra Das S.D.O, Jamtara 10 P.W.10 Dhaneshwar Ram Investigating Officer On behalf of the prosecution following documents have been marked as Exhibit/mark:- S.No. Ext-1 Description of documents/articles Remarks 1 Ext-1 Signature of PW1 on property search cum seizure form Without objection 2 Ext-1/1 Signature of PW2 on Property search cum seizure form Without objection 3 Ext-2 Signature of PW1 on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 4 Ext-2/1 Signature of PW2 on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 5 Ext-2/2 Signature of PW3 on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 6 Ext-3 Signature of PW1 on memo of arrest Without objection 7 Ext-3/1 Signature of PW2 on memo of arrest Without objection 8 Ext-4 Written complaint of the complainant Without objection 9 Ext-5 Verification report dated 31.03.2010 Without objection 10 Ext-6 Endorsement made on Ext.5 Without objection 11 Ext-7 Written application addressed to the S.P. Vigilance, Ranchi for approval of list of trap team Without objection 12 Ext-7/1 Signature of PW5 on the document pertaining to constitution of trap team Without objection 13 Ext-8 G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 14 Ext-8/1 Endorsement of complainant on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 15 Ext-8/2 Signature of PW5 on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 16 Ext-9 Property search cum seizure form Without objection 17 Ext-9/1 Search-cum-seizure list Without objection 18 Ext-10 Memo of arrest Without objection 19 Ext-P- 11/PW6 Signature of PW6 on the document pertaining to constitution of trap team Without objection 20 Ext- P12/PW6 Signature of PW6 on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 21 Ext- P13/PW7 Signature of PW7 on the document pertaining to constitution of trap team Without objection 22 Ext- P14/PW7 Signature of PW7 on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 23 Ext- P15/PW7 Signature of PW7 on search cum seizure list Without objection 24 Ext- P16/PW7 Signature of PW7 on property search cum seizure form Without objection 25 Ext- P17/PW7 Signature of P.W.7 on memo of arrest Without objection 26 Ext- P18/PW8 Signature of PW8 on the document pertaining to constitution of trap team Without objection 27 Ext- P19/PW8 Signature of PW8 on G.C. Notes Memorandum Without objection 28 Ext- 20/PW9 Endorsement made on the written complaint for submitting verification report Without objection 29 Ext-P21/PW9 Endorsement made on the verification report for registration of the case Without objection 30 Ext- P22/PW9 The document pertaining to constitution of trap team Without objection 31 Ext- P23/PW9 Endorsement made on the document pertaining to constitution of trap team Without objection 32 Ext- P24/PW9 G.C. Notes of Memorandum Without objection 33 Ext- P25/PW9 Property search cum seizure form Without objection 34 Ext- P26/PW9 Memo of arrest Without objection 35 Ext- P27/PW9 Certificate of court sent to the Director, FSL, Ranchi Without objection 36 Ext- P28/PW9 Sanction for prosecution Without objection The prosecution has proved following material Exhibits:- S.No. Material Exhibits Description of documents/articles Remarks 1 Material Exhibits M01/PW9 to M01/29/PW9 Thirty G.C. notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination each respectively Without objection 7. Learned lawyer for the appellant submitted that the informant Tarak Nath Mandal has not supported his case during the trial. It was further submitted that the seizure witnesses have also stated that they were made to sign the seizure list and the material Exhibits not at the place of occurrence but at Nala Bus Stand more. It was finally submitted that when the informant has himself given a complete go bye to his case, the learned court below ought to have acquitted the appellant. 8. Learned Special P.P. appearing for the state submitted that the verification officer, as well as the members of the raiding party have supported the prosecution case, she submitted that the verification officer have stated that the appellant had taken Rs. 30,000/- in his presence, which was recovered from his possession and when his both hands were immersed in the solution of phenolphthalein powder, the color of the solution turned pink due to the reason of presence of phenolphthalein powder in his hands. Learned Court below has rightly held the appellant guilty and the quantum of sentence also does not require any interference. 9. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 10 . From the perusal of the oral testimony of the informant Tarak Nath Mandal. It appears that he has stated that he had demolished his old house, which stood at plot no. 433. While he was constructing a new house, some people got the construction work stopped, he has further stated that he furnished his documents relating to his ownership of the aforesaid plot to the office of B.D.O. and S.D.O. He has also stated that a middle man had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him. Thereafter, he contacted the Vigilance Bureau. He has further stated that the written complaint was dictated to him by the officer of Vigilance Bureau, which he had signed. He has proved the complaint which is Ext.- 4. He has also admitted that he had gone with the officer of the Vigilance Bureau to the house of the appellant. The appellant had not demanded money in their presence. Thereafter, the officer of Vigilance Bureau asked him to arrange Rs. He has proved the complaint which is Ext.- 4. He has also admitted that he had gone with the officer of the Vigilance Bureau to the house of the appellant. The appellant had not demanded money in their presence. Thereafter, the officer of Vigilance Bureau asked him to arrange Rs. 30,000/- which was given by him to them and G.C. note memorandum was prepared on which he has signed. His signature has been marked as Ext.- 2/2. He has further stated that on 01.04.2010, officer of the Vigilance Bureau, entered into the house of the appellant and apprehended him at the time when he was standing outside. He has been declared hostile. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he has admitted that in the written report, he has stated that action should be taken against the appellant. Nawal Kishore Prasad P.W.4 is the verification officer. He has stated that on 08.03.2010, he was posted as police inspector in Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. On that day, the informant Tarak Nath Mandal (P.W.3) made a complaint against the appellant Shibajee Bhagat who was officiating as B.D.O-Cum-C.O. at Nala, stating that he was constructing a new house at his land after demolishing his old house but the appellant had stopped his work and was demanding Rs.50,000/- to allow him to resume the construction work. On the basis of this complaint Dy.S.P-Cum officer in charge of Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi directed him to verify the veracity of the complaint. On 09.03.2010 at about 09:00 A.M., he along with the informant went to the house of the appellant, he introduced himself as the uncle of the informant. The appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the informant in his presence to permit him to resume construction of his house. However, after negotiation the appellant scaled down his demand to Rs. 30,000/-. On 31.03.2010, he submitted a detailed report to the superintendent of police Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. He has proved his report which is Ext.-5. On the basis of this verification report Vigilance (Special) Case No. 10 of 2010 was instituted. He has proved the F.I.R. which is Ext.-6. He has further stated that on 31.03.2010, a trap team was constituted of which he was also a member. He has proved his report which is Ext.-5. On the basis of this verification report Vigilance (Special) Case No. 10 of 2010 was instituted. He has proved the F.I.R. which is Ext.-6. He has further stated that on 31.03.2010, a trap team was constituted of which he was also a member. Rs.30,000/- in the denomination of 1000 rupees of 30 notes were presented before the trap team and the investigating officer Dhaneshwar Ram prepared a G.C. note memorandum and all the members of trap team signed on it. He has proved the memorandum by virtue of which trap team was constituted which has been marked as Ext.-7, he has proved G.C. note memorandum which has been marked as Ext.- 8. He has further stated that Rs. 30,000/- was given to the informant after sprinkling phenolphthalein Powder on the notes. The informant was told that he should give these notes to the appellant. On 31.03.2010, the trap team went to the official residence of the appellant. He along with the informant went inside, while trap team waited outside and on the demand of the appellant Rs.30,000/- was given by the informant and on the signal of the informant the trap team entered there and this witness caught hold of the right hand of the appellant, while Jitendra Kumar caught his left hand. Thereafter, both of his hands were immersed in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The solution of sodium carbonate was also sealed and seizure list was prepared which has been marked as Ext.-9. The appellant was arrested by the trap team, in his cross examination, he has stated that, when he had entered into the house of the appellant neither he nor any member of the Trap team had given their search before any independent witnesses. He has proved the boundary of the house of the appellant. 11. Jitendra Kumar P.W.5., Tuntun Prasad Singh P.W.6 and Arun Kumar P.W.7 All were the members of the Trap team and all have supported the prosecution case that on 31.03.2010 at about 05:00 P.M., they had assembled in the office of Dy S.P. Dhaneshwar Ram and on the basis of the complaint of the informant and the verification report of the P.W.4 Nawal Kishore Prasad on 31.03.2010, they departed for Nala and on 01.04.2010 at about 07:30 A.M., they went to the house of the appellant. The informant and the verification officer Nawal Kishore Prasad went inside his house, while the Trap team waited outside. At 08:00 am, on the signal of the informant, they went inside. Two members of the Trap team held the hand of the appellant. In the meantime, local persons also gathered there and on search 30 notes of 1000 denomination were recovered from the possession of the appellant. The number of the notes were verified from G.C. notes memorandum and these notes were the same which were given to the informant by the Vigilance Officer, seizure list was prepared. These witnesses have identified their signatures on G.C. note memorandum, which are Ext.- 8 series. In their cross-examination, Jitendra Kumar P.W.5 has stated that the appellant has not demanded money in his presence. Tuntun Prasad Singh P.W.6 in his cross-examination, has also admitted that the appellant had not demanded any money in his presence. Arun Kumar P.W.7 has admitted that the appellant had not demanded bribe from the informant in his presence. Shankar Oraon P.W.8 has stated that on 31.03.2010, the informant Tarak Nath Mandal had come with 30 notes of 1000 denomination on which phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled. He has stated that he was also a member of the Trap team. At about 07:30 A.M., the Trap team reached the house of the appellant and at the instance of the informant and verification officer, the Trap team went inside and saw that the verification officer, Nawal Kishore Prasad had caught hold of the right hand of the appellant while Jitendra Kumar P.W.5 had caught hold of the left hand of the appellant. Rs. 30,000/- were held by the appellant in his hand. When the hands of the appellant were immersed in solution of sodium carbonate, it turned pink. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the appellant had not demanded any money from the informant in his presence. Dhaneshwar Ram P.W. 10 is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved several documents and also material Exhibits. He has also proved the place of occurrence, which is the official residence of the appellant situated at Nala, District Jamtara, he has proved the sanction report which is Ext.- P 28. He has also stated that he had sent the solution of sodium carbonate to Forensic Science Laboratory Ranchi for chemical examination. He has also proved the place of occurrence, which is the official residence of the appellant situated at Nala, District Jamtara, he has proved the sanction report which is Ext.- P 28. He has also stated that he had sent the solution of sodium carbonate to Forensic Science Laboratory Ranchi for chemical examination. He has proved the forwarding report which is Ext.- P27/P.W.9. 12. Learned lawyer for the appellant has drawn the attention of this court towards the paragraph 52 of his cross-examination of this witness in which he has stated that the informant had alone entered into the house of the appellant and on his signature Nawal Kishore Prasad first entered there. Attention has also been drawn towards paragraph 61 of cross-examination of this witness in which he has stated that Nawal Kishore Prasad has not stated before him that he had entered in the house of the appellant with the informant and that he had given bribe to the appellant in his presence. 13. From the aforesaid oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the informant Tarak Nath Mandal had admitted that at the instance of this appellant construction work of his new house was stopped. He has also admitted that money was demanded by middleman for getting him permission for resuming his construction work. He has also admitted that he had made a complaint to the Vigilance Bureau regarding this fact that bribe was demanded by the appellant for allowing him to resume the construction work of his new house. This witness has turned hostile on the point that any money was given to the appellant in his presence, he has also been declared hostile on the point that the appellant had demanded any money from him. 14. Nawal Kishore Prasad P.W.4 is the verification officer who has stated that he had gone to the house of the appellant with the informant and the appellant had demanded Rs. 50,000/- from the informant in his presence and after negotiation the demand was scaled down to rupees 30,000/-. This witness has stated that after he submitted his verification report, F.I.R. was instituted and a trap team was constituted. The informant had produced 30 notes of 1000 denomination on which phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled. 50,000/- from the informant in his presence and after negotiation the demand was scaled down to rupees 30,000/-. This witness has stated that after he submitted his verification report, F.I.R. was instituted and a trap team was constituted. The informant had produced 30 notes of 1000 denomination on which phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled. He has also stated that on 01.04.2010, the Trap team reached the house of the appellant and they along with the informant went inside where Rs. 30,000/- were given to him by the informant and when the informant made signal, the Trap team which was waiting outside reached inside and he and Nawal Kishore Prasad caught hold of the hands of the appellant while he was holding Rs. 30,000/-. The witnesses of the Trap team have also corroborated this fact. All the witnesses of the Trap team have stated that both the hands of the appellant were immersed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. A portion of the sodium carbonate solution was sealed, which has also been marked as material Exhibit. The members of the Trap team were waiting outside and when the appellant had received the bribe money, they had gone inside. So the fact that the money was not demanded in their presence is self-explanatory. The prosecution has also produced the sanction for prosecution of the appellant. 15. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case; it is apparent that all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated each other on the point that on the complaint of the informant that bribe was being demanded by the appellant for allowing him to resume construction of his house. The Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi came into motion. It has also been proved that after verification and finding the complaint to be true, the present case was instituted. The prosecution has also proved that the appellant was caught red handed receiving Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant and his hands, after he has received the bribe money were immersed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. It is a fact that the informant has not stated that bribe was demanded by the appellant from him. The prosecution has also proved that the appellant was caught red handed receiving Rs. 30,000/- from the complainant and his hands, after he has received the bribe money were immersed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. It is a fact that the informant has not stated that bribe was demanded by the appellant from him. He has stated that a middleman was demanding bribe from him for getting him permission to resume construction of his house but it is also a fact that it was the appellant on whose order, the work was stopped and he was caught red handed receiving the bribe money. The verification officer has in detail stated the entire prosecution case and there is nothing in his evidence to doubt his veracity. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts; I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant for the offence under sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Sections 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has rightly held him guilty for the aforesaid offence. 17. The sentence passed by the learned trial Court is commensurate to the quantum of the gravity and does not require any interference. 18. This appeal is dismissed 19. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.