Ram Bahadur Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the Vigilance and learned Counsel for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 19.05.2001 and order of sentence dated 22.05.2001 passed by Shri Prakash Kumar Roy, Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi in Special Case No. 12 of 1989, by which judgment, he found the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2500/under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove that the scientific investigation done by the informant was not complete, since, sodium carbonate solutions were not presented in the court.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Vigilance submitted that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the money was paid and recovery were also made, and the same has been proved by the witnesses. The learned Counsel for the Vigilance has also relied in a decision reported in State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra Pandey, , which says that even there is discrepancy in the investigation, which is scientific in nature, the finding is not changed. Since, the prosecution has proved the demand, acceptance and recovery, and hence, the prevention u/s 20(1) of P.C. Act will come into play; as held in the case of M. Narsinga Rao reported in 2001 SAR (Cri.) 132.

After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that the prosecution was started on the basis of a complaint made to the Vigilance department by one Chamru Lohara stating therein that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe and his father, in order to earn his livelihood, was running a flour Mill and for taking license of flour Mill he deposited Rs. 35/- with a challan in the office of Inspector of Factories, Ranchi and gave it to Shri Ram Bahudar Singh, who looked after the license of Gumla district, but he refused to give the challan and demanded Rs. 250/-. Since, he was not in a position to pay Rs. 250/-, he asked the Vigilance department to help him. The Vigilance department, then, deputed one G. Hembram, P.W. 14 to verify the demand. Then, the complainant, Chamru Lohar along with G. Hembram again reached the office of Factory Inspector, Ranchi where Ram Bahudar Singh again demanded Rs. 250/-, then again he was asked to give any date i.e. 15.02.1989. On 15.02.1989 the complainant, Chamru Lohara came with five notes of fifty rupees, which were stained with some powder, then memorandum of notes was prepared and was given to him. Then, the raiding party visited the office, where the complainant, P.W. 4 on demand gave the money to the accused Ram Bahudar Singh, who accepted the same and kept it in his pocket, when the raiding party came and lodged the F.I.R.. Subsequently, charge sheet was also submitted and filed before the Special Judge, who after cognizance and framing of the charge tried the case.

It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined nineteen witnesses.

P.W. 1 is Chamru Lohara, who is the informant in the case.

P.W. 2 is Ballassius Toppo, who is the staff of the Vigilance Department.

P.W. 3 is Kishun Kumar, who is the eye witness.

P.W. 4 is Prabhu Nath Prasad, who is the A.S.I. of the Vigilance Department.

P.W. 5 is Suresh Chandra Sinha.

P.W. 6 is Pravin Kumar Rai.

P.W. 7 is Parmeshwar Rabidas, who is the Vigilance Officer.

P.W. 8 is Rai Suresh Nandan Prasad.

P.W. 9 is Ram Ratan Singh, who is a tender witness.

P.W. 10 is S. Hembram, who is also a tender witness.

P.W. 11 is Pritam Singh, who is the independent witness.

P.W. 12 is Surendra Prasad Singh.

P.W. 13 is Brajnandan Prasad Singh ''Vikat''.

P.W. 14 is Gorbett Hembram, S.I., Vigilance.

P.W. 15 is Satyendra Prasad Deo, Vigilance Dy. S.P.

P.W. 16 is Nagina Singh, who is the member of trap party.

P.W. 17 is Parasnath Prasad.

P.W. 18 is Md. Ayub, who is the technician from FSL Patna.

P.W. 19 is Banktesh Narayan Prasad, Executive Magistrate.

The complainant, Chamru Lohara was examined as P.W. 1, who proved the fact that when he visited the office of the Inspector of Factories at Doranda, Ranchi in 1989 February in the first week and enquired from the steno babu about getting the license of ''Aata Chakki'', then he asked him to deposit a challan of Rs. 35/-. He gave Rs. 40/- to steno babu, who gave him one form and treasury challan and asked him to give the same in the next date. On the next date, when he went there and asked for the challan and license then he stated that go to Sri Ram Bahudar Singh, he will give the challan and license. Then, he went to the accused Ram Bahudar Singh and demanded the challan and license. Whereupon, he demanded Rs. 250. He stated that he is a poor man and he cannot give Rs. 250 immediately and took time from him. Thereafter, he gave a written report to the Vigilance office at Nepal House. He proved his written report as Ext.1. Then, the department appointed G. Hembrom, P.W. 14 for verifying the same. Thereafter, G. Hembram and he both again went to the office of Industry Factory, Ranchi and in presence of G. Hembrom, he asked Ram Bahudar Singh to give treasury challan and license, but he again demanded Rs. 250, then, he said that he will come on 15.02.1989 with money and left. After verification a report was filed by G. Hembrom on 15.02.1989, he again came to the office of Vigilance and gave five notes of Rs. 50/- to the Dy. S.P. Then, the Dy. S.P. powdered the same and prepared a memorandum of notes and signed on the notes and check the numbers of the notes. He also signed the memorandum of notes. He proved the signature on the memorandum of notes and the memorandum prepared by Dy. S.P. As Ext.2. Then, with the raiding party laid by the Dy. S.P., he went to the office of Factory Inspector, Ranchi and came to know that Ram Bahudar Singh has gone outside and will return at 3 P.M. At 3 P.M., when Ram Bahadur Singh came, he gave Rs. 250 to him, which he counted and kept in the pocket of his shirt. Then, he came out and gave signal to the raiding party, who went inside and arrested the accused. In cross examination, he stated that he is an educated person and has done M.A. In Philosophy. He had applied for getting the license in the name of his father, Bhudhu Lohara. He stated that the number of notes were known in the memorandum, but he cannot say the same now. The statement of P.W. 1 has fully been supported by the evidence of verifying officer, P.W. 14, G. Hembrom, who stated that in court on 09.02.1989. D.S.P. Vigilance called him and gave the complaint filed by the Chamru Lohara and introduced him challan and asked him to verify the allegations. He proved the complaint as Ext.1. He had written that he filed Rs. 35/- on a challan for getting a challan of Aata Chakki, but the person in charge is demanding Rs. 250/-. Then, he along with Chamru Lohara went to the office of Factory Inspector, Ranchi and in his presence, when he demanded the challan, he refused to give the license of Rs. 250/- until Rs. 250 given, then Chamru Lohara was called again with Rs. 250/- on 15.02.1989. Then, he filed the verification report. He proved the verification report as also Annexure 11, then again on 15.02.1989 when Chamru Lohara came with money, a memorandum of the notes was prepared and on the order of the Dy. S.P., which he proved as Ext. 4/6, he left with raiding party. Subsequently, the same money was recovered from the possession of the accused Ram Bahudar Singh after he accepted the same. He proved the G.C. Notes memorandum as Ext.2. He also stated that the hand of the accused as well as the pocket of the shirt were washed on the sodium carbonate water, which turned pink. Then, the solution was sealed and sent for chemical examination. The seizure was made in presence of two independence witnesses, who have also signed the seizure as well as the preparation of solution. He proved the currency notes recovery from the possession of the accused as material Ext. I-I/4. He also proved the recovery of shirt as material Ext. II. He has also proved his signature as Ext.3. Thereafter, along with the raiding party, he went to the office of Factory Inspector, Ranchi. The Ram Bahudar Singh was not present there. He has gone outside. Then, he waited and at 3 P.M. in the afternoon, when he returned, then, he went to him and gave him the money. He counted the money and put the same in the pocket of the shirt. Then, he came out of the office and gave signal to the raiding party, who were waiting from the outside. Thereafter, they recovered the money from him and arrested him.

In cross examination, he stated that he cannot give the number of G.C. Notes. In cross examination at Para 16, he has stated that after he came out of the office and immediately informed the raiding party. Then, money has been accepted by the appellant.

P.W. 2 is Ballassius Toppo, who has also supported the prosecution of raiding party and proved the order passed by him as Ext.4, his signature as Ext.4/1. He also proved the fact that G.C. Notes were presented by the complainant, which were marked and noted and a memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, the same was returned to him. Thereafter, they left from the office of the Inspector of Factories, Ranchi and at 3 P.M., when the accused came, then the money was given by the P.W. 1 and subsequently recovered from them from his possession. In presence of independent witnesses, the memorandum of G.C. Notes was read and G.C. Notes prepared were tallied. Then, the independent witness signed the same and in their presence, the hand of the accused was also washed in the Sodium Carbonate solutions and when it became pink, the same was sealed and sent for chemical examination. His pocket of shirt was also washed with Sodium Carbonate solution and when it also became pink in presence of independent witnesses, it was also sent to police station.

P.W. 3, Kishun Kumar, who is the independent witness, has also stated that on 15.02.1989, he was called for the Dy. S.P. of Vigilance in the office of Industry Inspector and stated that the G.C. Notes have been recovered from the possession of the accused and showed the memorandum of G.C. Notes. Seizure list was prepared and he proved his signature on the seizure list as Ext.5, however, since, he stated that nothing was recovered in his presence and thus he was declared hostile.

P.W. 4, Prabhu Nath Prasad, an officer of the Vigilance Department from Patna has also supported the fact that an order of raiding party was made, on which, he also singed and proved his signature as Ext.2/2. Then, in his presence, G.C. Note Memorandum was prepared and currency notes produced by the complainant. He marked his signature as Ext.3/2. He has also stated that thereafter they went to the office of Factory Inspector and at 3 P.M., when the accused came, the money was given to him by the complainant, which he accepted and thereafter the raiding party entered inside and recovered the currency notes from the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, in presence of independent witnesses, the memorandum of G.C. Notes was read and tallied. Thereafter, seizure was made and the accused was arrested.

P.W. 5, Suresh Chandra Sinha has proved the fact that in his presence on 15.02.1989 the challan was recovered from the table of the accused, which was marked as Ext.X for identification and initial made by the witnesses as Ext.6. He also proved his signature with seizure list of the challan as Ext.7. P.W. 6 is Pravin Kumar Rai, who is a steno of Inspector of Factories. He has proved the writing on the challan, which was written by him. He has proved his initial on the same as Ext.6/1. P.W. 7, Parmeshwar Rabidas is the S.P. He has also proved the fact that the complainant came with G.C. Notes worth Rs. 250/- in the denomination of Rs. 50/- each and G.C. Memorandum was prepared. Thereafter, he along with raiding party went to the office of Factory Inspector and at 3 P.M., the accused accepted money from the complainant. Thereafter, the recovery was made from his possession by the raiding party in presence of independent witnesses. He has also stated that the hand of the accused was washed and the pink water was preserved and sent for chemical examination. Even the pocket of his shirt was washed in the Sodium Carbonate solutions and pink water was sealed and sent for chemical examination. P.W. 8, Rai Suresh Nandan Prasad has also stated the same. P.W. 9, Ram Ratan Singh and P.W. 10, S. Hembram were tendered and nothing was asked from them. P.W. 11, Pritam Singh has also an independent witness and he has proved his signature on the memorandum of notes, which was read in his presence after recovery of notes from the accused. He also proved his signature on the seizure list as Ext.8/4. Since, he also stated that nothing was recovered in his presence, he was declared hostile. However, witnesses have also in detail supported the prosecution case namely P.W. 12, Surendra Prasad Singh, P.W. 13, Brajnandan Prasad Singh ''Vikat'', P.W. 14, Gorbett Hembram and P.W. 15, Satyendra Prasad Deo.

Thus, from the evidences, it appears that the prosecution witnesses have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant demanded Rs. 250/- as illegal gratification, which was reported to the Vigilance Department and after verification of P.W. 14, Gorbett Hembram, a raiding party was made including P.W. 18, Md. Ayub, D.S.P., Vigilance and other police officers. A G.C. Note memorandum was also prepared out of the money brought by the complainant, P.W. 1, Chamru Lohara. Thereafter, the notes were powdered and given back to the complainant, which he given to the accused at the office of Factory Inspector, Doranda. Subsequently, the notes were recovered by the Vigilance officers in presence of independent witnesses. Although, the independent witnesses have tried to that the recovery was not made at 3 P.M. as stated by P.W. 1 and other officer witnesses and it may be 11.30 A.M. or 12.00 Noon, due to which, the defence has argued that the discrepancy in the timing creates doubt in the prosecution case that any recovery was made from the possession of the accused, but it appears from the evidences, except the hostile witnesses, all have supported the fact that the recovery was made from the possession of the accused at 3 P.M. and moreover as relied by the learned Counsel for the State, the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra Pandey, along with the 2002 Eastern India Criminal cases page 150, wherein it has been proved that even if there are some discrepancy in the investigation, which is scientific in nature, the finding of conviction passed on evidence of demand, acceptance and recovery cannot be disturbed and in this case, since, there are sufficient evidence to prove the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery from the accused, and hence, in my opinion, the aforesaid judgment, which is also supported by other judgment reported in 2005 S.A.R. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Sri Ram Singh etc., wherein it has been held that in a case covered by P.C. Act, a defect or technicalities of law, or illegality in investigation, however, serious, has no direct hearing on the trial (relying on AIR 1955 SCC 196).

In that view of the matter, In my opinion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded the illegal money from the complainant, P.W. 1, which was paid to him and subsequently the said money was accepted by him and recovered from him in presence of witnesses.

In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.