Bhim Singh @ Bhimsen Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 05.03.2020, passed by the

learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Anti- Corruption Bureau, Dhanbad in Special (Vigilance) Case No. 12 of 2016

whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 2 Cr.

Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

a period of three years and fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of four months

for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant-accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of

Rs.75,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall

run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant (P.W.4) -Parmeshwar Saw is the owner of a truck and uses his truck for supplying

sand. On 15.10.2016 his truck damaged the dish cable wire. The personnel of Tiger Mobile of Police reached the spot and subsequently the damaged

cable wire was got repaired by the complainant. On 19.10.2016, the appellant-accused who was posted as Munsi in the Bank More Police Station

called the complainant to Police Station. When the complainant reached the Police Station the appellant- accused took the complainant near a hotel

and demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe for not registering a case against the vehicle of the complainant. As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe,

he submitted a written report addressed to the 3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Dhanbad. Basing

upon the same, the P.W.6 - Subhash was deputed for verification of the complaint. Upon the P.W.6 finding the complaint to be true, the F.I.R. of the

instant case was registered and a trap team was constituted and the appellant- accused was caught red handed while receiving the bribe of Rs.2,000/-

. After the said successful trap and completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted. The learned trial court framed the charges for the

offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the occurrence which took place on

21.10.2016. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and was put to trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses besides proving the documents. No witness was examined by the appellant-

accused in his defence.

P.W.4 -Parmeshwar Saw is the complainant of the case. He has stated that he instituted the case against Bhimsen. He made the complaint before

the Anti-Corruption Bureau. His written report was not read over to him in the Vigilance office. He put his signature upon the complaint which was

marked Exhibit -8. P.W.4 further stated about the incident of 15.10.2016 by which his truck damaged the cable wire of dish. He has further stated

that the personnel of Tiger Mobile stopped his vehicle and after obtaining his signature on blank 4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 paper, released the

truck. Thereafter, the P.W.4 received a call on his mobile handset by which he was called to Bank More Police Station. On 16.10.2016, the P.W.4

went to Bank More Police Station and met Bhimsen. Bhimsen resorted to dilly- dallying tactics but at that time he did not say anything. Nobody

demanded anything from him. Thereafter he met Bhimsen at a sweet meat shop and the P.W.4 put Rs.2,000/- in his pocket at which the appellant-

accused took out the money and threw them. P.W.4 identified his signature on the post- trap memorandum. At this stage the P.W.4 was declared

hostile. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution that he made any complaint of the appellant-accused demanding money, in the Anti-Corruption

Bureau. P.W.4 further stated that the verification officer went with him for the verification and in front of the verification officer, the appellant-

accused demanded money for expenditure. He produced the money in the office but later on the money was not returned. He denied making

statement before the I.O. that the appellant-accused kept the money in the back pocket of right side of his full pant. He also denied that he stated

before the I.O. that when the hand of the appellant-accused was washed, the colour of the solution turned pink. In his cross-examination in paragraph

no.12, the P.W.4 has stated that the appellant-accused never demanded any money from him nor he ever gave the money to the appellant-accused.

5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020

P.W.1 -Ramesh Kumar Sharma is an independent witness. He has stated that as per direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad he reached

the office of Anti- Corruption Bureau on 21.10.2016. Some reading and writing was done there. The currency notes were smeared with powder and

later on the same were kept in an envelope. The documents were prepared by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. He identified his signature on the

document. They went to one place and saw that two constables have apprehended one person. He identified the person who was apprehended to be

the person who was present in the court on the date of examination of P.W.1 in court. P.W.1 did not see giving or taking of money. At that place no

document was prepared. At this stage the P.W.1 was declared hostile. Even though he was put leading questions by the prosecution, still he did not

support the case of the prosecution. He only admitted his signature on the envelope. He also admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that the I.O.

did not record his statement. It is strange, as to why such a suggestion was given by the prosecution to the P.W.1 that the I.O. did not record his

statement. In his cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that on being told by the Vigilance Department, he signed upon all the documents which

were prepared in the office. He has neither read any document nor any document was prepared in 6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 his presence.

No giving and taking of money took place in his presence.

P.W.2--Sunil Kumar Manjhi is an Inspector of Weight and Measures. He is the other independent witness. He has stated that on receiving the

letter of Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad he reached the Vigilance Office. He stated about the pre-trap preparation made in the office of the Anti-

Corruption Bureau. On 11:00 A.M. they reached the Bank More Police Station. P.W.2 and the Dy. S.P. of Vigilance were outside the Baidyanath

Hotel. As the appellant-accused demanded money, the complainant handed over the said money to the appellant-accused. On receiving the signal

when the P.W.2 reached the spot, he saw the P.W.6 catching hold of the right hand of the appellant-accused and P.W.3 was catching hold of the left

hand. In the mean while the right hand of the appellant-accused was dipped in solution and the colour changed to pink. On being confronted, the

appellant- accused told that he has kept the money in his left pocket of his jeans pant. From that pocket four notes of Rs.500 denominations each i.e.

in total Rs.2,000/- was seized and in this respect a document was prepared which was signed by the P.W.2. He identified his signature on the

envelope. The numbers of the notes tallied with the numbers of the notes earlier noted. Upon identified by him the same were marked as Material

Exhibit -M to Exhibit -M/3. P.W.2 identified his 7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 signature on the memo of arrest which has been marked Exhibit-

3/1. The P.W.2 further stated about the post-trap memorandum and identified his signature upon the same which has been marked as Exhibit -4/2. In

his cross- examination, the P.W.2 has categorically stated that he has not seen the giving and taking of money as he was not there. A post-trap

memorandum was prepared in Bank More Police Station and all the witnesses put their signature on the post- trap memorandum in the Bank More

Police Station.

P.W.3 -Kanhaiya Prasad Singh is the Inspector of Jharkhand Police. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations and the complaint of the

complainant. He has further stated that the complaint of the complainant was verified and further stated about the preparation of G.C. Notes

Memorandum. On 21.10.2016, they left for Bank More Police Station. The complainant contacted the appellant-accused over phone outside the gate

of Bank More Police Station. The appellant-accused instructed the complainant to remain near the Baba Baidyanath Hotel. The appellant-accused

came to the Hotel and after some time the complainant signaled by scratching his head. The members of the trap team surrounded the appellant-

accused. His right hand was caught hold of by Vinod Rawani- the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Bureau and the left hand was

caught hold of by the P.W.3. Thereafter the hand of the appellant-accused was 8 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 washed in sodium carbonate

solution one by one. The colour of the solution in which the finger of the right hand was dipped turned pink. On being confronted, the appellant-

accused told that he has kept the money in the right side back pocket of his pant. The same was seized in front of the independent witnesses. The

numbers of the notes were tallied with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum. Thereafter, the post-trap memorandum was

prepared in the police station. In his cross-examination, the P.W.3 has stated that post-trap memorandum was not prepared at the place of

occurrence. He did not find any independent witness at the place of occurrence.

P.W.5 -Indushekhar Jha is an Inspector of Police. He has stated about the trap team being constituted on 20.10.2016 of which P.W.5 was a

member. On 21.10.2016, P.W.5 reached the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau at 9:00 am. He stated in detail about the complaint of the complainant

and the pre trap preparations. At about 10:45 am, the trap team left for Bankmore Police Station and reached there at about 11:15 am along with the

complainant. The complainant intimated the appellant-accused about his arrival over mobile phone. The appellant-accused instructed the complainant

to remain in the hotel near the gate of the police station. The appellant- accused took the complainant inside the hotel. The appellant- accused

demanded money. Thereafter, the complainant gave 9 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 the money and signaled. After the signal, all the members of

the team reached there and P.W.6 caught hold of the left hand and P.W.3 caught hold of the right hand of the appellant- accused. Both the hands of

the appellant-accused were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution in which the right hand of the appellant-accused was

dipped turned pink. The appellant-accused disclosed his identity and after being enquired about the bribe amount, he disclosed that the same is in the

right side back pocket of his full pant. The independent witness seized the money from the right side back pocket of the pant of the appellant-accused.

The denomination of G.C. notes were tallied and the right side pocket of his pant was also washed and the colour of the solution turned pink and the

same was kept in a bottle and the post trap memorandum was prepared. In his cross- examination, P.W.5 has stated that the proceeding of post trap

memorandum was done at the place of occurrence.

P.W.6 -Subhash is a police inspector and was also the verifying officer. He has stated that on 20.10.2016, he verified the demand of bribe money

made by the appellant- accused near Baba Baidyanath Hotel adjacent to the gate of Bankmore Police Station. After his verification on 20.10.2016, the

case was instituted. He has proved the verification report. On 21.10.2016 a trap team was constituted. He has further deposed that on 21.10.2016 he

went with the members of trap 10 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 team and reached at 11:00 am along with the complainant and the appellant-

accused came 10-15 minutes thereafter. On being demanded by the appellant-accused, the complainant gave Rs.2000/- which consisted of four notes

of Rs.500/- denomination each. The appellant-accused took the said money in his right hand and kept the same in his right pocket of his jeans pant.

The appellant-accused was caught red handed. On being searched, the money was recovered from the right pocket of the jeans of the appellant-

accused. On being compared, the numbers of the notes were found to be correct. Thereafter, many people assembled there and police also reached

there and thereafter all the proceedings was done in the office of Vigilance Bureau. He has stated that solution in which the right hand of the

appellant-accused was washed turned pink. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not verified the mobile number. He has further stated

that Munsi has no authority to register a case. All the post trap proceedings were done in the office of Anti-Corruption Bureau.

P.W.7 -Indradeo Ram is the I.O. of the case and has stated that P.W.6 has verified the complaint of the complainant and on the basis of that this

case was registered. On 20.10.2016 he constituted a trap team. He has deposed in detail about the pre trap preparations. He has also stated about the

complaint made by the complainant. P.W.7 further 11 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 stated that they reached Bankmore Police Station at 11:30

a.m., the complainant met the appellant-accused in Baidyanath Hotel. All the members of the trap team reached there. P.W.6 caught hold of the right

hand of the appellant-accused and P.W.3 caught hold of the left hand of the appellant-accused. The right hand of the appellant-accused was washed

in the sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution in which the finger of the right hand of the appellant-accused was washed turned pink. On

being enquired, the appellant- accused disclosed that he has kept the bribe money in the right side back pocket of his jeans pant which was seized by

the witness Ramesh Kumar Sharma (P.W.1). The numbers of the seized currency notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre trap

memorandum. The right side back pocket of the jeans pant of the appellant-accused was also washed in the sodium carbonate solution and the colour

of the solution turned pink. He identified the seized notes. Thereafter, the appellant-accused was arrested and post trap memorandum was prepared.

P.W.7 during course of investigation recorded the statement of the complainant and other witnesses and obtained the signatures of the complainant on

the relevant documents. He described the place of occurrence. After completion of investigation he submitted charge sheet.

12 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020

P.W.8 -Subhash Chandra Patel is a formal witness. He has proved the sanction for prosecution of the appellant- accused which was marked

Ext.17. In his cross-examination, he has stated that sanction for prosecution was typed by Parasnath Ojha in his room.

P.W.9 -Vinod Rawani has stated that he was posted as D.S.P. in Anti-Corruption Bureau. He has stated about the pre trap preparation in this

case. The trap team reached Bankmore, Dhanbad at 11:15 a.m. The post trap proceedings completed in between 12:45 hours to 13:45 hours in the

office of ACB Dhanbad. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that post trap memorandum was not prepared at the place of occurrence.

After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused was recorded regarding the

circumstances appearing in evidence against him wherein the appellant-accused admitted that he was a public servant posted as Munsi in Bankmore

Police Station on 16.10.2016. He expressed his ignorance about the damage caused to the cable wire. On 19.10.2016, he did not call the complainant

to the police station. He denied all the material questions put forth against him and pleaded innocence.

Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in record observed that P.W.3 to 13 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 P.W.7 have

supported the case of the prosecution. Learned court below also observed that the Rs.2000/- which was recovered from the appellant-accused could

not have been planted to implicate the appellant-accused falsely. Hence, leaned court below came to a conclusion that presumption under Section 20

of the Prevention of Corruption Act is attracted in this case and held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused

as already indicated above.

Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused submits that the learned court below failed to properly

appreciate the evidence in record and also failed to take into consideration that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is

further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused that the learned court below has failed to take into consideration

that there is absolutely no evidence in record regarding the handing over of the alleged bribe amount to the appellant-accused. It is next submitted by

the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant- accused that in order to establish the charges for the offence punishable under Section 7 as

well as under Section 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the essential ingredient are demand, acceptance or attempt

thereof of any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive 14 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 or reward for doing or forbearing to do any

official act. In this context, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of

India in the case of B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55, paragraph nos.6,8 and 9 read as under:-

PW 2, the complainant, did not support the prosecution case. He disowned making the complaint (Ext. P-11) and had stated in his deposition that

the amount of Rs 250 was paid by him to the accused with a request that the same may be deposited with the bank as fee for the renewal of his

licence. He was, therefore, declared hostile. However, PW 1 (panch witness) had testified that after being summoned by LW 9 K. Narsinga Rao, on

13-11-1995, the contents of Ext. P-11 (complaint) filed by the complainant PW 2 were explained to him in the presence of the complainant who

acknowledged the fact that the appellant-accused had demanded a sum of Rs 250 as illegal gratification for release of the PDS items. It is on the

aforesaid basis that the liability of the appellant-accused for commission of the offences alleged was held to be proved, notwithstanding the fact that in

his evidence the complainant PW 2 had not supported the prosecution case. In doing so, the learned trial court as well as the High Court also relied on

the provisions of Section 20 of the Act to draw a legal presumption as regards the motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act after

finding acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant-accused.

In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not

examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same

was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11)

before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P- 11

cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are,

therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the

accused as proved. The 15 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the

possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the

accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section

The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand

for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage

cannot be held to be established.

Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the

offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal

gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official

act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary

facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent."" (Emphasis Supplied) and submits that in the

present case, the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution regarding demand or acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-

accused. Drawing attention of this Court to the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 who are responsible Government Servants themselves and were

specifically deputed by the Deputy Commissioner to be the member of the trap team as independent witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution on the point of demand or acceptance of the bribe money and there is no rhyme or reason for their deposing falsehood had there being

any grain of truth in the allegations against the appellant-accused. It is further submitted that none 16 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 of the other

witnesses who are the officers of the Anti- Corruption Bureau had any occasion to see the alleged demand or acceptance of the bribe money by the

appellant- accused. It is next submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused that there is material contradictions on the

point as to who caught hold of the hand of the appellant-accused as some of the witnesses have stated that P.W.9 caught hold one of the hand of the

appellant- accused while other witnesses have stated that it was P.W.6 and P.W.3 caught hold of the hands of the appellant-accused. It is further

submitted that there is discrepancy in the evidence regarding recovery of the alleged bribe amount from the appellant-accused and the preparations of

the post trap memorandum as the Investigating Officer being P.W.7 has categorically stated that the same was prepared at the office of Anti-

Corruption Bureau while others have stated that the same was prepared at the place of occurrence while one of the witness has stated that the same

was prepared at Bankmore Police Station. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-accused next relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishan Chander vs. State of Delhi reported in (2016) 3 SCC 108, paragraph nos. 36 and

39 reads as under:-

The relevant para 7 from B. Jayaraj case [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] reads thus: (SCC p. 58) 17

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 ""7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal

gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it

is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been

succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P.

[C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3 SCC

779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] .

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the approach of both the trial court and the High Court in the case is erroneous as both the courts have relied

upon the evidence of the prosecution on the aspect of demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW 2) by the appellant

though there is no substantive evidence in this regard and the appellant was erroneously convicted for the charges framed against him. The

prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand of bribe money made by the appellant from the complainant Jai Bhagwan (PW 2), which is the

sine qua non for convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Thus, the impugned

judgment and order [Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2312] of the High Court is not only erroneous but also suffers from

error in law and therefore, liable to be set aside.""(Emphasis Supplied) and submits that as there is absolutely no evidence in record regarding demand

and acceptance hence, this is a fit case where the appellant-accused be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt. It is lastly submitted that

that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence being not sustainable in law be set aside and the this appeal be allowed.

Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel for the Anti- Corruption Bureau on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and conviction and order of

sentence and submitted 18 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 that P.W.3 and P.W.5 to P.W.7 have stated about the facts of the case and their

testimonies is sufficient to establish that there was recovery of the bribe amount from the pocket of the appellant-accused and the oral evidence

regarding his hand being washed in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the solution turned pink even absence of oral testimony regarding the

report of F.S.L. is sufficient to prove the recovery of the bribe amount from the appellant-accused as the FSL report in the record can be looked into

without its formal proof in view of section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is next submitted that the contradictions in the testimonies of the

witnesses of the prosecution pointed out by the appellant are minor in nature and the same is insufficient to impeach the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses. It is then submitted that the P.W.6 has stated about demand of bribe on 21.10.2016 and the same is also supported by the P.W.4 and this

evidence is sufficient for holding the appellant guilty. It is then submitted that there is no merit in this appeal hence, this appeal be dismissed.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no

evidence in the record regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant-accused on the alleged date of occurrence on

21.10.2016 for the offence of which date the appellant-accused 19 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 was facing the charges. P.Ws.1 and 2 who are

the independent witnesses and are responsible Government Servants and were specially deputed by Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for being the

members of the trap team have not supported the case of the prosecution, so far as the demand and acceptance of bribe amount is concerned.

Though the P.W.6 has stated about the demand being made by the appellant-accused during course of his verification and P.W.4 has stated that

P.W.5 accompanied him at the time of verification and the appellant-accused demanded expenses but the P.W.6 has categorically stated that the said

verification occurrence took place on 20.10.2016 and the same has also been mentioned in the verification report of P.W.6 basing upon which this

case has been registered. It is crystal clear that the charges for which the appellant-accused faced the trial were for the occurrence of 21.10.2016

and not for any occurrence which took place on 20.10.2016. So these testimonies of the P.W.6 and P.W.4 regarding the occurrence of 20.10.2016

will be of no avail to the prosecution so far as establishing the charges for the offences which took place on 21.10.2016. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of M.R. Purushotham vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5740 in the facts of that case as the complainant did not

support the case of demand of bribe and was declared hostile, observed as under:

20 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 ""When PW1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Exh.P1 before PW4

Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and

the contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused.

In this case, P.W.4 was the main witness as per the case of the prosecution who could have stated about the demand and acceptance of bribe on

21.10.2016 by the appellant-accused but he has categorically stated that no demand was ever made by the appellant-accused nor he has stated

anything about any amount given to the appellant-accused. There is nothing in record to disbelieve the testimony of P.W.4 in this respect that he did

not gave any money to the appellant-accused. No other witness has deposed about demand of money on 21.10.2016 as none of the other witnesses

have claimed to be the eye-witness of P.W.4 handling over the alleged amount to the appellant- accused. Even the P.W. 1 and 2 who are the two

responsible government servants who were deputed by the Deputy Commissioner and to were supposed to have seen the demand and acceptance

have not stated about demand or acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant-accused, without any plausible explanation. In the absence of such

evidence regarding the essential ingredient made by the appellant- accused on 21.10.2016, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in

record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 7 or under 21 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.319 of 2020 Section 13 (2) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant-accused namely Bhim Singh

@ Bhimsen Singh be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.03.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-

Special Judge, Anti- Corruption Bureau,Dhanbad in Special (Vigilance) Case No.12 of 2016 being indefensible is set aside and the appellant- accused

namely Bhim Singh @ Bhimsen Singh is acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant is in custody. In view of his acquittal, he is directed to be released from custody unless his

detention is required in connection with any other case.

In the result, this appeal is allowed.

In view of the disposal of this appeal, the interlocutory application is dismissed being infructuous.

Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.