Sangeet Kumar vs The Union of India Thru. Cbi

By judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar, Patna, in Special Case No.05 of

2002 arising out of R.C. 16(A) of 2002, the sole Appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section(s) 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under both Sections separately with fine of rupees one thousand each

under both Sections and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both sentences were directed to run

concurrently.

Prosecution case is that a written complaint dated 24.09.2002 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, was submitted by the Complainant,

Gulab Chandra (PW 4) against the accused, Sangeet Kumar, PWI, Sonepur, that he demanded a sum of Rs.500/- from the Complainant for

forwarding his papers regarding increased salary. Veracity of the allegation made by the Complainant was got verified by R. K. Thakur (PW 1), ASI,

CBI, Patna, who submitted his report confirming the allegation made by the Complainant of making demand of bribe by the accused. Thereafter,

formal First Information Report of R. C. Case No. 16(A) of 2002 dated 26.09.2002 was drawn against accused, Sangeet Kumar, and a team was

constituted consisting of the Officers of the CBI and two independent witnesses. The trap team of CBI on 27.09.2002 along with two independent

witnesses assembled in the office of TDM, BSNL, Hajipur, and were introduced to each other and a practical demonstration was conducted by the

CBI Police Officers. Thereafter, the GC Notes of Rs.500/-, which the Complainant had brought to use as bait money, was returned back to him after

treating the Notes with Phenolphthalein Powder with specific instruction to use the same in case of demand only and not otherwise. The witnesses

were also requested to remain alert and try to overhear and see the transaction if it takes place. A pre-trap memorandum dated 27.09.2002 was

prepared signed by all the members and thereafter trap team left for the venue of transaction. Further case of the prosecution is that trap reached at

the office of the accused, Sangeet Kumar, where he was not present. Thereafter, the trap team reached at his quarter. The accused arrived from his

office at his residence along with the Complainant. Harish Chandra Prasad, who was a shadow witness, also followed them. Sri Gulab Chandra and

Sri Harish Chandra Prasad after sometime came out and gave pre fixed signal, then all the team members reached towards quarter. Accused,

Sangeet Kumar, was found present in the 1st room at the entrance of the quarter. Sri R. K. Thakur, ASI and Sri B. K. Singh, Inspector, had caught

right and left hand of the accused. Leader of the trap team challenged the accused, Sangeet Kumar, after introducing himself and asked whether he

has taken any bribe from Gulab Chandra. Upon this, accused, Sangeet Kumar, became perplexed and kept mum for sometime. Leader of the trap

team again requested with the accused to give answer on which the accused replied “HUJUR KOI GHOOS NAHI LIYE HAI. MITHAI KE

LIYE PAISA LIYE HAIâ€. On being asked about the money, the accused pointed towards his left side upper pocket of his shirt. Shri Yogendra Rai,

independent witness was asked to take out the tainted money from his pocket, who recovered the tainted GC Notes from the pocket of the accused.

Thereafter, recovered tainted notes were tallied with the numbers written on the pre-trap memorandum. Thereafter, trap team proceeded for keeping

the same in safe place at Sonepur P.S. along with accused as other persons had assembled at the place of occurrence. After arrival at the police

station, a separate place was given to them by the staff of the Police Station. Solution of sodium carbonate with water was prepared in a glass and the

accused, Sangeet Kumar, was asked to dip and wash his right hand fingers upon doing so milky solution turned into pink. The solution was preserved

in a separate bottle, sealed and marked as R.W. Thereafter, accused, Sangeet Kumar, further dipped and washed his left hand in separate solution of

sodium carbonate, which also turned into pink, which was preserved in a separate bottle, sealed and marked as LW. Left side upper pocket of the

shirt of accused was also washed in a separate fresh solution of sodium carbonate and after doing it turned pink, which was preserved in a separate

bottle, sealed and marked as PW. Shirt of the accused was also seized separately. Independent witness, Sri Yogendra Rai, was asked by the leader to

produce the GC Notes recovered from the pocket of the accused, who produced the same, which were signed and sealed in a separate envelope. It is

further alleged that accused, Sangeet Kumar, was asked as to why he had accepted the said money from the Complainant, Gulab Chandra, then he

replied that he never compelled the Complainant for the said money. Money was given to him for sweets.

A recovery memorandum was prepared signed by all the members of the trap team along with independent witnesses. Thereafter, the trap team

reached in the office of the accused and two documents i.e. personal file including the service book of Sri Gulab Chandra, Gateman, PWI, Sonepur,

and memorandum dated 16.08.2002 were seized from the office of the accused from the possession of Md. Anwar Alam, PWI, Sonepur. A seizure

memo was prepared by the Inspector B. B. Bhatt in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Harish Chandra Prasad and Yogendra Rai. The

Inspector, CBI, B. B. Bhatt also searched the quarter of the accused on the same day in presence of above named two independent witnesses and

seizure list was prepared in presence of the witnesses.

The CBI after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section(s) 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused-Sangeet Kumar.

During course of investigation, expert report from CFSL and sanction report were obtained by the Investigating Officer. On receipt of the charge-

sheet, cognizance of the aforesaid offence was taken by the Special Court and after appearance of the accused Charge for the offence under

Section(s) 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed against the accused, Sangeet Kumar, to which he

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has altogether examined twelve witnesses during course of trial. R. K. Thakur (PW 1), who has submitted verification report,

Satish Chandra Jha (PW 2) has proved the sanction order, Anil Kumar Jha (PW 3) Inspector of CBI, Patna, and the member of the trap team, the

Complainant, Gulab Chandra, (PW 4), Rajendra Ram (PW 5), Railway employee, Sunil Kumar (PW 6), Assistant Engineer of Railway, Bimal

Chandra Purkait (PW 7), Junior Scientific Officer of CFSL, Vansh Narain Singh (PW 8), Senior Divisional Engineer, Railway, Yogendra Rai (PW 9)

and Harish Chandra Prasad (PW 10) independent witnesses, Jay Prakash Mishra (PW 11), the Investigating Officer and Bharat Bushan Bhatt (PW

12) the member of the trap team, have been examined in the

case.

Prosecution has also produced large number of documents, which include sanction order dated 27.03.2003 given by B. N. Singh, Senior Divisional

Engineer/IEC Railway/Sonepur, marked as Ext.4. Exit.1 is the verification report dated 26.09.2002 submitted by R. K. Thakur (PW 1). Ext. 3 is the

search list, which was conducted in the house of the accused, Sangeet Kumar, on 27.09.2002 and prepared by B. B. Bhatt, Inspector, CBI, Patna.

Ext.5 is the complaint petition submitted by the Complainant, Gulab Chandra, on 24.09.2002 before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Patna. Ext.13 is

the Pre trap memorandum dated 27.09.2002, Ext. 14 is recovery memorandum dated 27.09.2002, Ext.10 is the report of Junior Scientific Officer,

Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata, dated 02.11.2002, Ext.11 is the seizure memo, the documents seized on 06.11.2002 from the offence of

Sri Rajendra Ram, Office Superintendent, Office of Assistant Divisional Railway, Sonepur, Ext.15 is the personal search memo of accused-Sangeet

Kumar.

Defence of the accused is complete denial of the allegation. Further case of the defence is that the Complainant, Gulab Chandra, Gate Man, was

punished by the accused prior to this trap. Accused never demanded and accepted bribe money of Rs.500/- from the Complainant-Gulab Chandra.

Prosecution produced only three documents i.e. arrest memo, medical certificate and the seizure list dated 27.09.2002 at the time of producing the

accused before the Court on 28.09.2002. No other document was produced by the prosecution. Verification report was not produced by the

prosecution on 28.09.2002, rather, it was produced by the prosecution on 27.01.2004 at the time of examination of PW 1. Further case of the defence

is that on 27.09.2002, at the time of his personal search, Rs.2890/- was recovered from his possession along with other personal articles. Personal

belongings of the accused were handed over to Shri Raj Kishore, the brother of the accused on 27.09.2002 in presence of PW 9 and 10, but Rs.2890/-

, which was personal money, was not given to the accused or his brother-Raj Kishore. The accused was working since 1987 in the Railway and since

then no complaint was made against the accused from any quarter with regard to his conduct. Several rewards and letter of appreciation were given

to the accused by Railway Administration. No such verification was made by any Officer of the CBI or by PW 1. The defence has altogether

examined three witnesses. DW 1, Md. Anwar Alam, is the Senior Tap Man, Railway, DW 2, Sudhir Kumar, is Physiotherapist in Railway and DW 3,

Devanand Rai, is PWI, Sonepur Railway. Defence has also produced several documents. Ext. A is the notice regarding salary voucher dated

26.05.2003 issued from Sonepur Division N E Railway, Ext. B is the letter addressed to the Divisional Engineer, dated 05.03.2002, Ext. C is the

Certificate issued from the office of Senior Section Engineer, NE Railway Sonepur, Ext. D is the input sheet for the month of August, 2002, with

regard to the employees of the Railway including the Complainant, dated 06.08.2008, issued from the office of Senior Section Engineer, NE Railway,

Sonepur, Ext. D/1 is also input for the month of October, 2002, with regard to the employees of the Railway including the Complainant issued from the

office of the Senior Section Engineer, NE Railway, Sonepur. The Office Order No.60 issued from the office of the Divisional Railway Manager

Personnel, Sonepur, was also marked as ‘X’ for identification. Another input sheet with regard to the employees of the Railway including the

Complainant was also marked as ‘Y’ for identification.

The Court below on the basis of the evidence has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as mentioned in the impugned judgment,

which is under challenge in this appeal.

Following ingredients will have to be necessarily proved before the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section(s) 7 and 13(2) read

with 13(i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:

I. The accused at the time of offence was a public servant,

II. That he accepted from some person illegal gratification,

III. Such gratification was not legal due to him,

IV. The accused accepted the gratification as motive or reward for one of the following purposes:

(a) during or for appearing to do an official act,

(b) showing or for appearing to show favour or dis-favour to someone in the exercise of his official function,

(c) rendering or admitting to render any service or dis-service to someone with any public servant.

It is not in dispute that accused, Sangeet Kumar, was a public servant posted as PW I, NE Railway, Sonepur at the time of trap.

Bharat Bhushan Bhatt (PW 12), Inspector of CBI, Patna, was the leader of trap team. He was entrusted to investigate the case by the order of

Superintendent of Police, CBI. This witness has stated that he sent request to Zonal Office of Central Bank for sending two independent witnesses,

who were sent by the Bank. He has directed the Complainant to meet in TDM Office, Hajipur. He along with members of the team and two

independent witnesses assembled in the office of CBI and thereafter they proceeded for Hajipur. They reached in the Rest House of TDM Office at

about 9.45 AM where the Complainant was present from before. A pre trap memorandum was conducted at Hajipur on 27.09.2002 at 9.45 AM.

Signatures of both independent witnesses were obtained on a plain paper which was treated with Phenolphthalein powder. Said powder was touched

by Yogendra Rai, whose hand was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, which turned into pink from milky. Said solution was kept in a bottle

and piece of paper was kept in an envelope. This witness has identified his signature on the said bottle and the envelope, which have been marked as

Ext.2/65 and 2/66. He has also proved his signature on the said piece of paper, which has been marked as Ext.2/67. He also proved the piece of said

paper, which has been marked as material Ext. XI. He has further stated that the Complainant, Gulab Chandra, was asked to produce Rs.500/-, each

of one hundred whose numbers were noted and treated with Phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the pocket of the shirt of the Complainant with

instruction to give the same to the accused on demand. This witness has proved his signature on the envelope in which rest Phenolphthalein powder

was kept, which has been marked as Ext.2/68. The independent witness Harish Chandra Prasad was requested by him to remain with the

Complainant as a shadow witness with instruction to give gesture after completion of transaction. Pre trap memorandum was prepared regarding

demonstration, which is in his writing and signature. This witness has proved his signature, which has been marked as Ext.13. Thereafter, this witness

along with members of the team reached at the office of PWI at 12.30 hrs. The Complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the

accused, Sangeet Kumar, who was present in his office. After lapse of some minutes, he came out from his office and proceeded to his quarter. The

Complainant and shadow witness also followed him. Accused and the Complainant entered into the quarter and shadow witness stayed at his Darwaja

and ASI R. K. Thakur stayed near window of his quarter. After sometime on getting signal given by the Complainant and shadow witness, trap team

went to his quarter where the accused was sitting in his room on a chair wearing Ganji. Hands of the accused were caught by R. K. Thakur and B.

K. Singh. The accused was challenged by this witness by giving his identification to the accused, then accused said nothing, but later on he told that he

has taken money for sweets. The accused was asked about money, then he pointed out towards his shirt hanging in a peg (Khunti). Thereafter,

witness, Yogendra Rai, recovered the tainted notes from his shirt and numbers of the said notes were tallied with the number of pre-trap memo which

got tallied. In the meanwhile, nearby people assembled there. Thereafter the members of the trap team along with accused went to Sonepur Police

Station for safety where solution of sodium carbonate was prepared. Both the hands of the accused were dipped in the said solution separately then

colour of solution of sodium carbonate turned into pink from milky, which were sealed in separate two bottles signed by this witness. This witness has

proved his signatures marked as Ext.2/69 and 2/70. Pocket of the shirt was also dipped in the solution, which turned into pink, which was sealed in a

separate bottle. Shirt of the accused was also sealed in an envelope, which has already been marked as material Ext.X. The recovered tainted GC

Notes of rupees five hundred from the pocket of shirt of the accused were sealed in an envelope. The witness has identified his signature on the said

envelope marked as Ext.2/71. This witness has stated that earlier marked as material Ext. IX, the envelope from which tainted GC Notes were

missing from the custody of the Court and the same were not available in the said envelope. This witness has further stated he has prepared recovery

memo, which is in his writing and signature marked as Ext.14. The accused was arrested and arrest memo was prepared. On being searched, from

the possession of accused, Rs.2890/- and some documents were recovered and seizure memo was prepared thereof. This witness has identified the

said personal seizure memo, which was prepared by B. K. Singh, Inspector, on his dictation signed by this witness marked as Ext.15. Thereafter, he

went to the office of accused, Sangeet Kumar, and seized the document relating to the Complainant and prepared seizure memo signed by him. This

witness has identified the seizure memo and his signature, which has been marked as Ext.16. He has further stated that two documents were seized

from the office of the accused, which were identified and marked Ext.8 and 9. He has stated that search was made in the house of the accused, but

no objectionable article was recovered from his house. Search list was prepared thereof in the writing and signature of this witness, which has been

marked as Ext.3. Thereafter, this witness went to the house of accused at Samastipur, where his house was under-construction. Search was not made

there and from where he along with accused reached CBI Office, Patna, He recorded statement of the Complainant on the next day and after

medical examination accused was remanded to custody. This witness sent the material exhibits to Forensic Laboratory, Kolkata, for examination. He

handed over charge of investigation to J. P. Mishra, Inspector of CBI, on the order of Superintendent of Police.

During cross-examination on behalf of the defence, this witness has stated that after arrest of the accused he conducted personal search of the

accused at Sonepur Police Station. Independent witnesses were present at the time of personal search. Brother of the accused, namely, Raj Kishore

Singh, was also present at the Sonepur Police Station. In para 21 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that Rs.2890/- was seized from the

possession of the accused, which was his personal money and deposited in the CBI Malkhana. This witness has stated in his cross-examination that at

the time of forwarding report of the accused he had produced three documents in the Court such as arrest memo, medical certificate and house

search list. He has stated that at the time of producing the accused in Court he did not submit the pre trap memo, verification report and recovery

memo along with the accused. He has further stated in para 28 of his cross-examination that recovery memo was prepared, but copy of the same was

not given to the accused. This witness has, however, after seeing the case diary has stated in the Court that accused had denied to take copy of

recovery memo and to give acknowledge thereof.

Gulab Chandra (PW 4), the Complainant, has stated that on 24.09.2002 he submitted application in the office of CBI against accused Sangeet

Kumar, who was demanding Rs.500/- as bribe for fixation of his pay and arrear bill of his salary. He has proved the Complaint Petition signed by him,

which has been marked as Ext.5. He along with Officers of CBI and two independent witnesses had assembled on 22.09.2002 in the Telephone

House at Hajipur. He has stated in his evidence about the pre trap demonstration as stated by PW 12. He has proved his signature on the sealed bottle

in which solution was kept at the time of pre trap demonstration. He also stated about the instructions given by the CBI. He has proved his signature

on the pre trap memo. After pre trap demonstration, this witness along with members of the trap team went to the office of the accused where

accused was not present. Thereafter, he went to the house of accused where accused demanded Rs.500/- from him. Thereafter, this witness handed

over five notes to the accused, who after counting the same put in his pocket. Thereafter, this witness gave signal to the members of trap team as

instructed by the CBI Officers at the time of pre trap demonstration. CBI Officer caught both hands of the accused and independent witness

recovered the said Notes from his pocket. Number of the said Notes of Rs.500/- were tallied with the numbers of pre trap memo. Both the hands of

the accused and pocket of his shirt were dipped in the solution. This witness has proved his signature on the sealed bottles in which RHW and pocket

wash were kept marked as Ext.2/18 and 2/19. He has also proved his signature on the envelope in which said Notes of Rs.500/- were kept marked as

Ext.2/20. He has also proved his signatures on the recovery memo marked as Ext.2/21 to 2/25. He has also proved the envelope in which shirt of the

accused was kept, which has been marked as Ext.2/26.

 During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has no knowledge as the accused was not present in his office on 03.09.2002. He further

stated that from 24.09.2002 to 26.09.2002, accused was present in his headquarter. He has further stated that he has no knowledge as to whether the

accused was present in his office or not on 24.09.2002.

Yogendra Rai (PW 9), who was independent witness, was present in the trap team of PWI Sangeet Kumar on 27.09.2002 on the order of his

Regional Manager. He along with Harish Chandra Prasad reached in the office of CBI at 9.00 hrs. and proceeded for Hajipur with CBI team. They

had assembled in the Rest House of BSNL, Hajipur. There were 6-7 members of CBI in the said team besides him. Complainant, Gulab Chandra, also

met with him in the Rest House. They were identified and also told about the Complainant, Gulab Chandra, who had complained that accused, Sangeet

Kumar, has been demanding Rs.500/- as bribe for fixation of his salary. This witness has further stated that a piece of paper was treated with

Phenolphthalein powder, which was touched by him. Thereafter, his hand was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, which turned into pink. The

said solution was sealed in a bottle signed by him. He has proved his signature, which has been marked as Ext.2/27. Tainted piece of paper was

sealed in an envelope signed by him. He has proved his signature on the envelope, which has been marked as Ext.2/28. He has also proved his

signature on the tainted paper, which has been marked as Ext.2/29, used at the time of demonstration. Thereafter the complainant gave Rs.500/- each

Note of rupees one hundred whose numbers were noted and the same were treated with Phenolphthalein powder which was kept in an envelope

sealed and signed by him along with others. This witness has identified his signature marked as Ext.2/30. This witness has further stated that the

complainant was given instruction that money will be given to accused, Sangeet Kumar, on demand itself. He was also given instruction that after

transaction is being completed, he will give gesture by touching his beard. Harish Chandra Prasad was asked to become shadow witness. This witness

has stated that pre trap memorandum was prepared in the Rest House at Hajipur, signed by him along with others. This witness has identified his

signature on all the four pages which have been marked as Ext.2/31 to 2/34. After preparation of pre trap memorandum he along with members of

trap team reached in the office of accused at 12.30 hours. The accused came out from his office. The complainant went to the residence of the

accused with him. Other members stayed near the Railway line. Harish Chandra Prasad also followed them. The complainant went to the house of

the accused and after some time he came out from the house and gave signal after itching his beard then Inspector Sahab went inside the house

rashly and other members also went there.

This witness has further stated that when he reached there, he saw both hands of the accused were caught by the Inspector, on whose direction this

witness took away money from his pocket. Thereafter they went to the Sonepur Police Station, where both the hands of the accused and pocket of his

shirt were dipped in solution separately which turned into pink. The solution were kept and sealed in separate bottles marked â€"R.W./L.W. The

numbers of the notes were tallied and the same were sealed in an envelope. The said bottles and envelope were signed by the witnesses (members of

the team). This witness has proved his signatures on the bottles and envelope marked Ext.2/35 to 2/38. This witness has proved his signature on the

envelope in which shirt of the accused was sealed which has been marked as Ext.2/39. This witness has further deposed that on being asked the

Complainant has stated that on demand he gave the said tainted notes to the accused. On being asked the accused has stated that he did not take

bribe. The Complainant has given money for sweets. He has deposed that accused was arrested and a memorandum was prepared signed by the

members of trap team. This witness has proved his signature on all five pages of said memorandum which have been marked as Ext.2/40 to 2/44.

Thereafter this witness along with others went to the office of the accused where search was made in the Almirah and C.B.I. Police seized 1-2 paper

and seizure-list was prepared thereof in presence of this witness. This witness has identified his signature on the said seizure list marked as Ext.2/45.

He has further stated that search was also made in the house of the accused from where no article was seized. A search list was prepared signed by

him. This witness has proved his signature on the carbon copy of said search list marked as Ext.2/46. This witness has identified the accused present

in the court.

During cross-examination, this witness has stated that he saw the Inspector Sahab catching both hands of the accused Sangeet Kumar. In para 15 of

his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the said shirt from which money was recovered, was in the hands of the Inspector Sahab. The said

shirt was sealed in an envelope at the police station. In para 17 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that about Rs.3000/- was recovered

from pocket of the Pant of the accused. A search-list was prepared thereof signed by him and Raj Kishore, which have been marked as Ext. A and

A/1 respectively. In para 23 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say as to whether map of the place of occurrence was prepared or

not.

 15. Harish Chandra Prasad (PW 10) is also an independent witness and was doing work of shadow witness. He was posted as Manager in Central

Bank of India, Regional Office Patna. He had participated in the proceedings of trap with C.B.I. Police Officer on 27th September, 2002. When this

witness reached in C.B.I. Office, Patna, as per direction of his Regional Manager, Yogendra Rai also reached there. He has stated that at about 9.00

A.M., he along with C.B.I. team proceeded for Hajipur and reached in the Rest House of BSNL, Hajipur at 10.00 hours. There were 7-8 officers of

CBI including Inspector Bhatt, Upadhyay and Yogendra Rai present in the trap team. The Complainant also came there. They were informed by

Bhatt Sahab in the Rest House about their assembly and were also informed about the complaint of the Complainant. This witness has stated about

the practical demonstration held in the Rest House of BSNL, Hajipur. According to him a piece of plain paper was treated with chemical powder

which was touched by Yogendra Rai and his hand was dipped in the solution whose colour turned into pink from milky. The solution was sealed in a

bottle signed by him and others. This witness has proved his signature on the sealed bottle marked as Ext.2/47. The said piece of paper was sealed in

an envelope signed by this witness and others. This witness has proved his signature on the sealed envelope, which has been marked as Ext.2/48 and

also on the tainted paper, which has been marked as Ext. 2/49. He has further stated that as per direction of team leader the Complainant, Gulab

Chandra, gave Rs.500/- each note of Rs.100/- (one hundred) to Yogendra Rai, who noted the numbers of the same and got verified. The said notes

were treated with chemical powder and returned to Gulab Chandra with instruction to give the same to the accused on demand only. Some

instructions were also given to the Complainant by Bhatt Sahab. Rest powder by which Notes were treated, was sealed in an envelope signed by this

witness and others. This witness has identified his signature on the said envelope which has been marked as Ext.2/80. This witness has stated that pre

trap memorandum was prepared in the IB of BSNL signed by him and others. This witness has proved his signatures on all the four pages which have

been marked as Ext.2/51 to 2/54. He has deposed that he along with members of the team proceeded to the office of the accused from IB, BSNL and

reached there. Accused was present in his office. At about 12.45 P.M., the accused came out from his office and proceeded towards his residence

with the complainant. Both were followed by this witness as well as by the members of the trap team. They reached near the Railway quarter of the

accused. The accused entered his house then the complainant also went to his house and this witness stayed at the Darwaja of the accused.

Thereafter, the accused demanded money from the Complainant upon which he gave Rs.500/- to the accused which was kept by him in the pocket of

his shirt. Thereafter the Complainant came out from the room of the accused and gave signal, as stated earlier, then members of the trap team

entered the quarter of the accused and CBI police caught his both hands. Accused was asked by CBI Inspector Bhatt Sahab about the money of

Rs.500/- taken by him from the complainant Gulab Chandra, as bribe, he said nothing. On being asked about money by Bhatt Sahab, the accused

pointed out towards the pocket of his shirt hanging in a peg. At that time accused was wearing Ganji. This witness has further stated that on the

direction of Bhatt Sahab, Yogendra Rai took the money from the pocket of his shirt whose numbers were tallied with the numbers of pre trap

memorandum. Thereafter accused was arrested and for safety they went to Sonepur police station, for further proceedings where Officer in-charge

provided the place. Thereafter solution was prepared and both the hands of the accused were dipped in the solution separately which turned into pink

from milky. The said solutions were sealed in two bottles signed by him. This witness has identified his signatures marked as Ext.2/55 and 2/56.

Pocket of the shirt of the accused was also dipped in the solution which turned into pink and sealed in a bottle signed by this witness. This witness has

proved his signature on the said sealed bottle marked as Ext.2/57. Shirt of the accused was also sealed in an envelope signed by him. This witness has

proved his signature on the said envelope marked as Ext.2/58. This witness has identified the shirt of the accused which has been marked as material

Ext. X. The tainted notes of Rs.500/-, each of one hundred were also sealed in an envelope signed by him. He has proved his signature which has

been marked as Ext.2/59. This witness has further stated that recovery memo was prepared signed by him. He has identified his signatures on all the

five pages which have been marked as Ext.2/60 to 2/64. This witness along with others went to the office of the accused where personal file of the

Complainant, Gulab Chandra, was given by Gang Man and one other file was also given by him. Seizure list was prepared thereof signed by this

witness. He has proved his signature on the seizure-list marked as Ext.2/65. Thereafter, he along with members of the team went to the house of the

accused where the CBI police prepared an inventory list, from where no document or article was seized. House of the accused was searched and

search list was prepared signed by him. This witness has proved his signature, which has been marked as Ext.2/66. His statement was also recorded

by CBI police. This witness has identified the accused present in the court.

During cross-examination in para 21, this witness has stated that he reached in the office of CBI at 8.30 A.M.

Jay Prakash Mishra (PW 11) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated that he took over the charge of investigation of this case.

During course of investigation, he recorded statement of the witnesses. He seized the documents. He obtained the report of CFSL and also received

the sanction order from the competent authority against the accused and thereafter he submitted charge-sheet. He has proved the seizure memo dated

06.11.2002, which has been marked as Ext.11.

During cross-examination, this witness has stated that on 06.11.2002 documents were seized from Rajendra Ram with respect to the Complainant.

Prior to this, on 27.09.2002, Inspector B B Bhatt also seized the documents from Gang Man from the office of PWI, Sonepur, with respect to the

Complainant. He did not record the statement of said Gang Man Anwar Alam. This witness has further stated that he did not record the statement of

Raj Kishore and other persons who were present in the quarter of the accused at the time of incident.

Anil Kumar Jha (PW 3) was also one of the members of the trap team being Inspector CBI, Patna. He has stated that Rs.500/- was recovered

from the possession of the accused. After recovery the number of the notes was tallied with pre trap memorandum. All the five notes each of one

hundred denomination was kept in an envelope signed by him. He has identified his signature on the envelope, which has been marked as Ext.2/8 and

recovered five notes were marked as material Ext. IX to IX/4. Notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused and his hand was washed then

colour of the solution turned into pink. The solution was kept in a bottle upon which this witness has identified his signature, which has been marked as

Ext.2/9. Both hands of the accused were also washed then colour of the solution turned into pink, which were kept in two bottles (Ext. V and VI)

upon which this witness has identified his signatures which were marked as Ext.2/10 and 2/11. He was cross-examined by defence. He has stated

that there is no signature of the accused on the recovery memorandum. The accused has denied to put his signature on the recovery memorandum.

Sunil Kumar (PW 6) was posted as Assistant Engineer from 06.09.2002 to 10.03.2005 at Sonepur Division. He has stated that on 27.8.2002, he

received a letter from the accused regarding increase of salary of the Complainant Gulab Chandra. He has proved the endorsement and signature of

the accused on the said letter, which has been marked as Ext.6/1. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that salary of the complainant, Gulab

Chandra, was fixed on 16.09.2002.

Bimal Chandra Purkait (PW 7) was posted as Junior Scientific Officer in CFSL, Kolkata on 22.11.2002. He has proved his chemical examination

report, which has been marked as Ext.10.

Bansh Narayan Singh (PW 8) was posted as Senior Divisional Engineer- I, E.C., Railway, Sonepur on 27.03.2003. He has proved the sanction

order (Ext.4). He had given sanction order against the accused, Sangeet Kumar, for prosecution.

Satish Chandra Jha (PW 2) was posted as Confidential Assistant to Senior Divisional Engineer-I,E.C. Railway, Sonepur. Sri B.N. Singh was the

Senior Division Engineer-I. He had worked with him. He had typed the sanction order, which is against the accused Sangeet Kumar, on dictation of

Sri B.N. Singh. He has proved the sanction order, which has been marked as Ext.4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not signed the

sanction order and there is no initial also on sanction order. He had taken dictation in short hand.

R.K. Thakur (PW 1) has submitted verification report. He has stated that he being ASI of CBI, Patna, was also a member of the trap team. He

has proved the verification report which is in his writing and signature and marked as Ext.1. This witness has stated that paper was prepared in his

presence. Tainted piece of paper was kept in an envelope which was signed by him and marked as material Ext.I and the signature of witness has

been marked as Ext.2. Demonstration wash was sealed in a bottle signed by him and marked as material Ext.II and signature has been marked as

Ext.2/1. Phenolphthalein powder was also kept in an envelope signed by him. This envelope has been marked as material Ext. III and signature has

been marked as Ext.2/2. Five notes each of one hundred as gratification were also kept in an envelope signed by him. Envelope has been marked as

material Ext. IV and signature has been marked as Ext.2/3. He has proved right hand wash kept in a bottle signed by him, which has been marked as

material Ext. V and his signature has been marked as Ext.2/4. Left hand wash kept in a bottle signed by him has been marked as material Ext. VI and

his signature has been marked as Ext.2/5. Pocket wash was also kept in a bottle which is in the writing of A.K. Malviya, signed by this witness. Bottle

has been marked as material Ext. VII and signature of this witness has been marked as Ext.2/6. Shirt of the accused was also kept in an envelope

which is in the writing of Malviya Sahab signed by him (this witness) which has been marked as material Ext. VIII and signature is marked as Ext.2/7.

This witness has also proved the search list, which has been marked as Ext.3.

He was cross-examined by defence. He has stated that the verification report has been produced in the court today for the first time i.e. 27.1.2004.

He has stated that there is no signature of any Officer on the verification report.

During cross-examination, he has further stated that below his signature there is overwriting with respect to the date in the verification report. He did

not write any date in his verification report. In his cross-examination, in para 7 he has stated that he has no knowledge that the accused, Sangeet

Kumar, was absent from his office on 24.09.2002, 25.09.2002 and also on 26.09.2002. In para 6 of his cross-examination, he also stated that he met

with the Complainant at Sonepur station prior to verification. The PWI Office is far away about 2½ K.M. from Railway Station. This witness has

further stated that Sri Hari Nath Mishra, was S.P., CBI, at the relevant time and his signature or initial is not on Ext.1. His signature is also not

available on Ext. 3. According to this witness, giving and taking of bribe happened at Railway Platform, Sonepur. Railway quarters are at the distance

of about 100 yards in the north from Sonepur Platform.

Rajendra Ram (PW 5) was posted in the office of Railway Sonepur in the year 2002. He has proved the letter dated 24.04.2002, which has been

marked as Ext.6. This witness has stated that aforesaid letter was attested by Sunil Kumar, Assistant Engineer. He has proved input sheet and pay

fixation sheet, which have been marked as Ext.7 and 8 respectively. He has proved the personal service book of Sri Gulab Chandra, Complainant,

which has been marked as Ext.9. He further deposed that the Pay fixation sheet from 16.09.2002 to 02.10.2002 was in the custody of accused,

Sangeet Kumar, PWI, which was sent by him till 02.10.2002. He has further stated that CBI police had seized the documents from his custody.

During cross-examination, this witness has stated that Assistant Engineer has got power of pay fixation.

On behalf of defence, altogether three witnesses have been examined.

Md. Anwar Alam (DW 1) has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused Sangeet Kumar and the Complainant Gulab Chandra. On

27.9.2002, the CBI police seized the documents relating to Gulab Chandra from his possession. The seized documents were service book of Gulab

Chandra and memorandum of pay fixation, upon which seizure-list was prepared in presence of this witness. This witness has signed the same and

copy of which has been given to him. This witness has identified his signature on the said seizure list, which has been earlier marked as Ext.16. This

witness has stated that pay fixation of Gulab Chandra was made on 16.9.2002 according to ACP by Sunil Kumar, AEN, Sonepur. He has stated about

the input sheet. This witness has stated that no work of Gulab Chandra was pending before the accused till 27.9.2002. He has proved the letter dated

05.03.2002 in carbon copy, which has been marked as Ext. B.

Sudhir Kumar (DW 2) has stated that occurrence is of 27.09.2002 at noon. He is Physiotherapist. He had gone to the quarter of the accused to

see his wife who was suffering from back pain. He has stated that CBI police entered into the quarter of the accused forcibly and caught his hands

and took away to Sonepur P.S. This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief about the false implication of the accused Sangeet Kumar.

Devanand Rai (DW 3), PWI, Sonepur has stated that he knew the accused, Sangeet Kumar, as well as the Complainant Gulab Chandra. He has

proved the certificate dated 06.08.2008, which has been marked as Ext. C. According to this witness, this certificate is with respect to salary of the

Railway employees. He has stated about the input sheet, which has been marked as Ext. D. This witness has further proved the input sheet for the

month of October, which has been marked as Ext.D/1. This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no complain against the

accused Sangeet Kumar. He was given appreciation letter in the year 2002 by the General Manager,

Gorakhpur Railway.

Learned counsel for the CBI has submitted that there are sufficient evidences, which are consistent and there is no illegality in the judgment of the

Court below. Counsel for the CBI submits that when hands of the accused were dipped in solution the liquid turned pink evidencing the presence of

Phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the accused. Counsel for the CBI further submits that from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it

appears that when the agreed amount i.e. Rs.500/- was paid, he has accepted the said currency Notes and put the same in the pocket of his shirt. The

raiding party arrived upon the pre agreed signal being given. It is not possible to believe that the Police Officer of CBI has formed from the beginning

and conspired to rope the accused by hook and crook.

Counsel for the CBI has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Dr. G. K. Ghosh reported in AIR 1984

SC 1453 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1974 Cr.L.J. 789, wherein, Supreme Court has held that police officials cannot be discredited

in trap case merely because they are police officials.

Counsel for the CBI has further argued that presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, shall always arise. It is

obligatory on the Court to raise it in every cases brought under Prevention of Corruption Act.

On the other hand, counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no reliable evidence to show that bribe amount of Rs.500/- was given by

the Complainant to the petitioner. Alleged bribe money was not produced before the Court at the time of evidence. Counsel for the Appellant has

further submitted that at the time of producing accused on 28.09.2002 before the Court, the prosecution filed only three documents i.e. arrest memo,

medical certificate and search list dated 27.09.2002 of the residential quarter of the accused with forwarding report dated 28.09.2002. No other

document was produced by the CBI relating to this case at the time of producing the accused. Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that the

Appellant has neither demanded nor accepted bribe of Rs.500/- from the Complainant. Bribe amount was not recovered from conscious possession of

the Appellant. Residential house of the Appellant was also searched on 27.09.2002 in presence of PW 9 and 10, but no document relating to this case

was recovered. The trap team also did not find any objectionable document in the house of the Appellant. It is further submitted that on the same day

in presence of PW 9 and 10, some documents such as personal file including service book of Gulab Chandra, the memorandum pay dated 16.09.2002

in four sheets were seized from DW 1, Anwar Alam, Gang Man. Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that no any work of Gulab Chandra

was pending before the Appellant. Appellant has been working since 1987 and since then no complaint was made against him from any quarter with

regard to his conduct, rather, several rewards and letters of appreciation were given to him by Railway Administration as stated by DW 3 in his

evidence. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that no alleged verification was made by the Officers of the CBI or by PW 1.

From perusal of evidence of PW 1, it would appear that no such verification was done prior to the alleged trap i.e. 27.09.2002. Counsel for the

Appellant has further submitted that recovery memorandum (Ext.14) was not prepared on the date of alleged trap since the said document was not

enclosed with the forwarding report dated 28.09.2002. Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that there is vital contradiction in the deposition

of prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that when Appellant reached in the railway quarter, he was

wearing Ganji and Pant. Shirt of the accused was in the hand of the Inspector.

This Court on perusal of the evidence of the witnesses as mentioned, in detail, above, finds that there is no eye witness to support the

Complainant’s allegation during evidence in the Court that he paid an amount of Rs.500/- as bribe to the Appellant. Harish Chandra Prasad (PW

10) was a shadow witness. He has stated in his evidence that they reached near the railway quarter of the accused. Accused entered into his house,

then Complainant also went inside the house. This witness stayed at the Darwaja of the accused Thereafter, accused demanded money from the

Complainant upon which he gave Rs.500/- to the accused, which was kept by him in pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, the Complainant came out from

the room of the accused and gave signal and then members of the trap team entered into the quarter of the accused.

Similarly, Yogendra Rai (PW 9), who was independent witness and member of the trap team, has stated in his evidence that the Complainant went

to the residence of the accused. Other members stayed near the railway line. The Complainant went to the house of the accused. After sometime, he

came out of the house and gave signal by touching his beard. Then Inspector went inside the house rashly and other members also went there. This

witness has further stated that when he reached there, he saw both hands of the accused was caught by the Inspector on whose direction this witness

took out money from his pocket.

Bharat Bhushan Bhatt (PW 12) is the leader of the trap team. This witness has stated in his evidence that he along with others reached at the

office of the Appellant at 12.30 hours. The Complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the accused, Sangeet Kumar, who was present

in his office. After lapse of some minutes, he came out from his office and proceeded to his quarter. The Complainant and the shadow witness also

followed him. The accused and the Complainant entered into the quarter and shadow witness stayed at his Darwaja. ASI, R. K. Thakur, stayed near

window of his quarter. After sometime, on getting signal given by the Complainant and the shadow witness, the trap team went to his quarter where

the accused was sitting in the room on a chair wearing Ganji. Hands of the accused were caught by R. K. Thakur and B. K. Singh. Accused was

challenged by this witness by giving his identification to the accused, then accused said nothing but later on he told that he has taken money for

sweets. Accused was asked about the money then he pointed towards his shirt hanging on a peg (Khunti). Thereafter, witness, Yogendra Rai,

recovered the tainted notes from his shirt and number of the said notes was tallied with the numbers of pre trap memorandum.

The Complainant Gulab Chandra (PW 4) has stated in his evidence that after pre trap demonstration he along with members of the trap went to

the office of the accused where accused was not present. Thereafter, he went to the house of the accused where accused demanded Rs.500/- from

him. Thereafter, he handed over five notes of Rs.100/- to the accused, who after counting the same kept in the pocket. Thereafter, this witness gave

signal to the members of the trap team as instructed by the CBI Officers at the time of pre trap demonstration. CBI Officer caught both hands of the

accused and independent witnesses recovered the said notes from his pocket.

Jay Prakash Mishra (PW 11) is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated that he did not record statement of any other persons, who

were present in the quarter of the accused at the time of incident.

Sunil Kumar (PW 6) was posted as Assistant Engineer from 06.09.2002 to 10.03.2005 at Sonepur Division. He has stated that on 27.08.2002, he

received a letter from the accused (Appellant) regarding increase of salary of the Complainant Gulab Chandra. He has proved endorsement and

signature of the accused on the said letter marked as Ext.6/1. In cross-examination, he has stated that salary of the Complainant, Gulab Chandra, was

fixed on 16.09.2002.

The case of the Complainant in the complaint dated 24.09.2002 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, is that Appellant was demanding

sum of Rs.500/- from the Complainant for forwarding his paper with regard to increase of salary, whereas, from the evidence of Sunil Kumar (PW 6),

it is apparent that he has received the letter on 27.08.2002 from the Appellant regarding increase of salary of the Complainant, Gulab Chandra. He has

proved endorsement and signature of the Appellant on the said letter marked as Ext. 6/1. In cross-examination, he has stated that salary of the

Complainant, Gulab Chandra, was fixed on 16.09.2002 and letter for increase of salary of the Complainant was already received by PW 6 from the

Appellant.

Learned counsel for the CBI has laid much emphasis on Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act- Presumption where public servant

accepts gratification other than legal remuneration. In this respect, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of V. Venkata Subbarao vs. State

reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 754 (SC) that Section 20 provides for raising of a presumption only if a demand is proved. Furthermore, even in such a case,

the burden on an accused does not have to meet the same standard of proof, as is required to be made by the prosecution.

The only condition for drawing a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed

to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxaman Rao Wankhede reported in 2009 Cri. L. J. 4425,

has held that standard of burden of proof on accused vis-Ã -vis prosecution would differ. Court is required to consider explanation offered by accused,

if any, only on touchstone of preponderance of probability. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that before the accused is called upon to

explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the fundamental facts must be established by the prosecution even by invoking

the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of

preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in another decision in the case of C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2009) 3

SCC 779 has held that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused

when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused,

in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.

In the instant case, there is no reliable evidence to prove payment of bribe by the Complainant to the Appellant or to show that the Appellant

voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe.

The motive as alleged by the Complainant that the Appellant made demand of bribe for forwarding papers for fixation of salary is totally

demolished by the evidence of prosecution witness, namely, Sanjay Kumar (PW 6), who was posted as Assistant Engineer from 06.09.2002 to

10.03.2005 at Sonepur Division. He has clearly stated in his evidence that he has received a letter on 27.08.2002 from the accused (Appellant)

regarding increase of salary of the Complainant Gulab Chandra. He has also stated that salary of the Complainant, Gulab Chandra, was fixed on

16.09.2002.

Therefore, in the circumstances, allegation made by the Complainant that on 24.09.2002 the accused made demand of Rs.500/- for forwarding his

paper with regard to increase of salary got falsified. Besides this, there is vital contradiction in the deposition of the witnesses.

Yogendra Rai (PW 9) has stated in his evidence that when he entered in the quarter of the accused, he was wearing Ganji and Pant. Shirt of the

accused was in the hand of the Inspector. Leader of the trap team, Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, (PW 12) has stated in his evidence that when he entered

into the quarter, accused was sitting in the room on chair wearing Ganji. Hands of the accused were caught by R. K. Thakur and B. K. Singh. The

accused was challenged by this witness by giving identification to the accused, then accused said nothing. But, latter on, he told that he has taken

money for sweets. The accused was asked about money then he pointed out towards his shirt hanging in a peg (Khunti). Thereafter, witness,

Yognedra Rai, recovered tainted money from his shirt. Gulab Chandra (Complainant), PW 4, has stated in his evidence that he went to the house of

accused where he demanded Rs.500/- from him. Thereafter, he handed over five notes of Rs.100/- to the accused, who after counting the same put in

his pocket. Thereafter, the witness gave signal to the members of trap team as instructed by the CBI Officers at the time of pre trap demonstration.

CBI caught both hands of the accused and the witness recovered tainted money from his pocket. PW 1, R. K. Thakur, has stated that giving and

taking of bribe had happened at the Railway Platform.

Yogendra Rai, PW 9, who was also member of the trap team and independent witness, has stated in his evidence that the Complainant went to the

house of the accused. After sometime, he came out of the house and gave signal by itching his beard. Then Inspector went inside the house rashly

and other members also went there. This witness has further stated that when he reached there, he saw both hands of the accused was caught by the

Inspector on whose direction this witness took out money from his pocket. Thereafter, they went to the Police Station, Sonepur, where both hands of

the accused were dipped in solution separately which turned into pink.

Harish Chandra Prasad (PW 10), who was a shadow witness, has stated in his evidence that when accused entered his house then the

complainant also went to his house and this witness stayed at the Darwaja of the accused. Thereafter the accused demanded money from the

Complainant upon which he gave Rs.500/- to the accused which was kept by him in the pocket of his shirt. Thereafter the Complainant came out from

the room of the accused and gave signal and then members of the trap team entered the quarter of the accused and CBI police caught his both hands.

Accused was asked by CBI Inspector Bhatt Sahab about the money of Rs.500/- taken by him from the Complainant Gulab Chandra as bribe, he said

nothing. On being asked about money, the accused pointed out towards the pocket of his shirt hanging in a peg. At that time accused was wearing

Ganji. This witness has further stated that on the direction of Bhatt Sahab, Yogendra Rai took the money from the pocket of his shirt whose numbers

were tallied with the numbers of pre trap memorandum. In this manner, there are vital contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses with regard to

making payment of the money to the accused by the Complainant as well as recovery of money from the conscious possession of the Appellant.

PW 12, Bharat Bhushan Bhatt, who was team leader of the trap team, has stated in his evidence that earlier marked as material Ext. IX, the

envelope, from which tainted GC Notes were missing from the custody of the Court, and the same were not available in the said envelope at the time

of his evidence. This witness has stated that he has prepared recovery memo, which is in his writing and signature marked as Ext.14. The accused

was arrested and arrest memo was prepared.

Anil Kumar Jha (PW 3) was also one of the members of the trap team. He has stated memorandum of recovery of notes was prepared but there

is no signature of the accused on the recovery memorandum.

Jay Prakash Mishra (PW 11) is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has stated in his evidence during crossexamination that on 06.11.2002

documents were seized from Rajendra Ram with respect to the Complainant. Prior to this, on

27.09.2002, Inspector B B Bhatt also seized the documents from Gang Man from the office of PWI, Sonepur with respect to the Complainant. He did

not record the statement of said Gang Man Anwar Alam.

Aforesaid Anwar Alam was produced and examined by the defence as DW 1. He stated in his evidence that he knew the accused, Sangeet

Kumar, and the Complainant Gulab Chandra. On 27.9.2002, the CBI police seized the documents relating to Gulab Chandra from his possession. The

seized documents were service book of Gulab Chandra and memorandum of pay fixation, upon which seizure-list was prepared in presence of this

witness. This witness has signed the same and copy of which has been given to him. This witness has identified his signature on the said seizure list,

which has been earlier marked as Ext.16. This witness has stated that pay fixation of Gulab Chandra was made on 16.9.2002 according to ACP by

Sunil Kumar, AEN, Sonepur. He has further stated about the input sheet. This witness has stated that no work of Gulab Chandra was pending before

the accused till 27.9.2002. He has proved the letter dated 05.03.2002 in carbon copy, which has been marked as Ext. B.

Sudhir Kumar (DW 2) has stated that he is Physiotherapist. He had gone to the quarter of the accused to see his wife who was suffering from

back pain. He has stated that CBI police entered into the quarter of the accused forcibly and caught his hands and took away to Sonepur Police

Station.

Devanand Rai (DW 3), PWI, Sonepur has stated that he knew the accused, Sangeet Kumar, as well as the Complainant Gulab Chandra. He has

proved the certificate dated 06.08.2008, which has been marked as Ext. C. According to this witness, this certificate is with respect to salary of the

Railway employees. He has stated about the input sheet, which has been marked as Ext. D. This witness has further proved the input sheet for the

month of October, which has been marked as Ext.D/1. This witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that there was no complain against the

accused Sangeet Kumar. He was given appreciation letter in the year, 2002 by the General Manager, Gorakhpur Railway.

Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of unreliable evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that

the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, as discussed above, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to

establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts that the Appellant has received any gratification.

Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Special Judge, CBI, North Bihar, Patna, in

Special Case No.05 of 2002 arising out of R.C. 16(A) of 2002, is hereby set aside.

The Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.

This Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.