Ram Narayan Ram vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—On repeated calls no body appears on behalf of the appellant. Learned Counsel for the State Vigilance Department, Mr. A.K. Kashyap is present in Court. On request of the Court, Ms. Seema Rani Gupta, Advocate accepted to argue on behalf of the appellant.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that it appears from the evidence of witnesses namely P.W. 1, P.W. 11 and P.W. 14 that they have given different place of occurrence, whereas P.W.1 has stated that the bribe money was accepted in front of hotel. The I.O. P.W. 8 stated that the bribe money was accepted in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Education. P.W. 11 stated that the occurrence of acceptance took place out side the D.S.E. office. P.W. 14, informant stated the money was accepted in front of the book stall and as such there is major contradiction in the place of occurrence and as such the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is fit to be set aside.

She has further argued that the sanction of prosecution was granted on letho paper which is Ext.8 which proves that sanctioning authority had not applied his mind while granting the sanction for the prosecution and as such the conviction is bad in law and fit to be set aside.

On the other hand learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the vigilance has submitted that there is no discrepancy in the place of occurrence because all the witnesses are stating the same place. The fact that the money was accepted by the accused who is head clerk in the D.S.E. office out side the office and in front of the tea shop and all the witness are stating the same. P.W. 1 stated that the money was accepted in front of the hotel and P.W. stated that the occurrence took place out side the D.S.E. office and the I.O. stated that the occurrence took place in the D.S.E. office premises and the informant P.W. 14 stated that the money was accepted by the informant at the tea stall. So all are referring to the same place and there is no discrepancy land as such the Trial Court rightly stated that there is no discrepancy in the place of occurrence1. As such the argument of the Counsel for the appellant has got no substance. He has further stated that as per Section 19(3) a finding of conviction can not be set aside by the Appellate Court on the ground of irregularity in the sanction. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant only because the sanction was granted on letho paper. Moreover, the Sanctioning Authority P.W. 13 was examined in the Court and he clearly stated that after perusing the entire record and finding prima facie case sanction was granted. He further relied in a decision reported in : 2005 4 SCC page 81 wherein Supreme Court has held that if the sanction order is not in proper order then the Sanctioning Authority must be examined and in this case sanctioning Authority was examined and stated before the Court that the sanction was granted after the perusal of entire record.

After hearing both the parties and going through the record I find that prosecution case was started on the basis of written report filed by the informant Jagat Narayan Prasad P.W. 14 wherein he stated that he was working as a teacher in a school at Namkum and his salary was lying due with the government from March 1983 to November 1988 for which he had made an application to D.S.E. He came to know that file is pending in the office of the D.S.E. and the head clerk Ram Narayan Ram is not putting the file before D.S.E. He approached the said head clerk then he demanded Rs. 1000/- for putting the file before D.S.E. then he made an complaint to the office of S.P. Vigilance, Ranchi. P.W..5 Bhagwan Singh verified the mater and gave verification report on 11.04.1991 stating that the complaint was found true during enquiry investigation then the informant deposited 10 notes of Rs. 100/- for which the G.C. Notes memorandum was prepared in the office of the S.P. Vigilance which was signed by the witness and the informant thereafter on 18.04.1991 made a raiding which went to the office of the D.S.E. wherein in presence of the shadow witness Bhagwan Singh P.W. 5 the informant gave the money which was already noted in the G.C. Notes memorandum and treated with chemical powders and the money was kept in pocket by the accused appellant then the same was recovered in presence of independent witness from his possession and the appellant was taken into custody. After investigation police submitted charge sheet On the basis of which the Special Judge, Vigilance took cognizance of the case u/s 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)d of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide order dated 13.11.1991 and after trial the appellant was convicted as aforesaid.

In course of trial prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in presence of whom the money was accepted. The informant was examined as P.W.14 an independent witness Niranjan Nath Deoghariya staff of S.B.I., Main Branch, Ranchi was examined as P.W. 12 while the Vigilance Magistrate, Shri Ajay Kumar Singh was also examined as P.W.ll. The shadow witness was also examined as P.W.5. The I.O. Ramdaval Oraon is examined as P.W. 8.

It appears that the informant in his examination-in-chief in Court, when he was examined as P.W. 14 has fully supported the case as give in the First Information Report that demand of Rs. 1000/- was made by the accused head clerk of the D.S.E. office to put the file before the D.S.E. whereupon, he made a complaint in the office of S.P. Vigilance, Ranchi, then the complaint was verified by the Vigilance Officer P.W. 5 Bhagwan Singh in his presence. Accused again demanded Rs. 1000/- for putting the file before D.S.E. on 08.04.1991 and after verification given by him the S.P. called him with the money and hence the informant went to the office of S.P. Vigilance and produced 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each on 18.04.1991. The G.C. Notes memorandum was prepared and was examined by chemical powders and thereafter the same was kept in envelop and given to the informant. Thereafter, he along with the raiding party went to the office of accused wherein persons of shadow witness P.W.5. The accused accepted the money and thereafter shadow witness given signal then the other witness came and recovered the same from his pocket. Thereafter, the pocket was washed and the water became pink then the hands were also washed and water turned pink. Then the same was seized and sent for chemical examination. The shadow witness P.W.5 Bhagwan Singh supported the informant and stated that the written report given by the informant was given to him on 04.04.1991. The S.P. Vigilance asked to go with the complainant to verify the allegation. He went to the office of the accused with the informant on 05.04.1991 and 08.04.1991 and it was found that he was out of station on 10.04.1991. He went with the informant to his house, where the accused demanded the money then he submitted the verification report which is marked as Ext. 3. He proved the signature and then Submitted the verification report. Subsequently, the raiding party made G.C. Notes memorandum which was signed by him. He further stated that the S.P. admitted him as shadow witness and proved the informant to the office of the accused for giving bribe money because in his presence the bribe money was accepted by the accused then he went with the raiding par by, who recovered the bribe money from the possession of the accused and thereafter hands and pocket were washed and water turned pink, which were seized and sent for chemical examination and the accused was arrested. The Magistrate P.W. 11 Shri Ajay Kumar Singh has also supported the prosecution case and stated that on 18.04.1991 he had gone at 11.00 A.M. with the raiding party to the office of D.S.E., Ranch! He stated that G.C. Notes memorandum of complaint was prepared in his presence and proved the signature on the G.C. Notes memorandum as Ext. 1/50. He also stated that in his presence the 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination was presented by the informant, which was treated by chemical powder. He also proved that when the shadow witness Bhagwan Singh gave the signal that the money has been given then he along with raiding party had reached the place of occurrence and in his presence and presence of independent witness the money was recovered from the possession of the informant and seizure was prepared which was signed by turn as well as by the independent witness Niranjan Deogharia. The prosecution case was also fully been supported by the evidence of P.W. 8 Ramdayal Oraon an independent witness. P.W. 12 Niranjan Deogharia, P.W. 1 Sanjay Kumar Sharma , S.I. Vigilance and other witness and all the witnesses proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the bribe money that is illegal for putting file before D.S.E. was demanded by accused appellant Ram Narayan Ram the same was verified by the Vigilance Department, S.I. P.W.5 Bhagwan Singh. Thereafter in presence of witnesses Vigilance Department including Vigilance Magistrate an independent witness the money was recovered from the possession of the accused and the chemical examination report was proved by P.W. 16 shows that solution which was seized shows that the money was accepted by the accused.

Thus, prosecution has proved the three important ingredient for conviction of accused u/s 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act i.e. demand of bribe, its acceptance and verification of acceptance of the money and hence I find that the learned Trial Court has rightly found the appellant guilty u/s 13(1) and 13(2) and convicted the appellant.

Lastly, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in amicus curiae submitted that the occurrence is of April, 1991 and since last 19 years the appellant is under great distress in fighting the case from the Vigilance Court, Civil Court during the trial and has sufficiently been punished for demanding the meager amount of Rs. 1000/-. He is a poor man and is the only bread earner of his family. In that view of the matter compassionate view may be taken and sentence may be reduced.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department submits that the minimum sentence prescribed for offence u/s 13(ii) of the P.C. Act is one year.

Since, the case is old of the year 1991 and the appellant has suffered since long. In that view of the matter sentence of two years R.I. is reduced to the period of one year only u/s 13(1)d and also Section 7 of the P.C. Act. Both the sentences will run concurrently.

With the aforesaid amendment in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be given to Ms. Seema Rani Gupta appearing as amicus curiae, who has very ably conducted the appeal Amicus Curiae.