Satyendra Kumar Thakur vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellant has been convicted u/s 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(2)/5 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of Rs. 1500/- by a judgment dated 25.7.1995 passed in Special Case No. 03 of 1988 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar at Patna.

The prosecution case is that the complainant P.W.-8 filed a written report before the Vigilance Department stating therein that the Appellant who happened to be Labour Inspector had demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- for disposing of a case in his favour. The bribe money was negotiated and finally it was agreed that a sum of Rs. 250/- would be paid to the Appellant as illegal gratification. On this information the Vigilance Department constituted a trap party and, therefore, on 14.3.1988 at about 12.30 p.m. allegedly the Petitioner was arrested having accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 150/- which he had kept on his table and the same was recovered from there.

During trial the prosecution examined 17 witnesses out of whom P.W. 2, 3, 4 and 10 are tendered and P.W. 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 are formal in nature, P.W. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 are the members of the trap party out of whom P.W. 1 is the shadow witness whereas P.W. 8 is the complainant, P.W. 12 is the leader of the team.

The submission is that the two independent witnesses i.e. P.W. 9 and 10 who were allegedly seizure witnesses have in fact not corroborated the prosecution case, since where P.W. 10 has been tendered, P.W.9 has stated in his cross-examination that he came to the place of occurrence after the money was recovered from the table of the Appellant. Therefore, neither of the two independent witnesses are on the point of acceptance or recovery of illegal gratification from the possession of the Appellant.

It also appears that the witnesses have given contradictory statements about the Appellant having dipped his hand in chemical solution and the same becoming pink. The evidence of P.W. 12 points to the major lacunae in the investigation since he admitted that he had not sent the solution for chemical examination and had merely deposited same in the malkhana. None of the Investigating Officers has deposed that the solution was sent for chemical examination.

In absence of any cogent material that in fact the Appellant had accepted the illegal gratification as also that the solution was not sent for chemical analysis, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution version on demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Appellant.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant by a judgment dated 25.7.1995 passed in Special Case No. 03 of 1988 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, North Bihar at Patna are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the respective charges. The Appellant is discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.