High CourtsSingle Bench

Sheo Lakhan Ram vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 19 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 04 PAT CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjana Prakash, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 161 · Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 5(1), 5(2)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 7 of 1995
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 390 words

Anjana Prakash, J.—Heard.

2.

The Appellant has been convicted u/s 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1994 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default three months rigorous imprisonment respectively by Special Judge, (Vigilance), Patna, in Special Case No. 14 of 1985 by a judgment dated 13.12.1994.

3.

The prosecution case is that the Complainant was the Informant of Alauli P.S. Case No. 115 of 1985 and when he approached the Appellant for investigating the case properly since he was the A.S.I. of Alauli P.S., he demanded gratification for doing so. On one occasion, he took Rs. 200/- whereafter a trap team was constituted and in their presence the Appellant is said to have accepted Rs. 600/- as further gratification.

4.

The prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11 are on the point of alleged demand and recovery. P.W. 6 is the Complainant/Informant whereas P.W. 2 is the shadow witness. P.W. 4 and P.W. 7 are the persons who had made signatures on the currency notes which were to be handed over to the Appellant. P.W. 10 was the Incharge of Alauli P.S. who brought all the documents with regard to the Alauli P.S. Case No. 115 of 1985.

5.

On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, I find that P.W. 2 the shadow witness fully corroborated the facts that initially Rs. 200/- was paid to the Appellant and he also further demanded the rest 600/-. With regard to the recovery of the rest of the money, P.Ws 3, 4, 10 and 11 are completely consistent.

6.

In view of such, finding no merit in the Appeal, the same is dismissed.

7.

However, the sentence of the Appellant is converted to one that he has already undergone. In addition the Appellant (if alive) will deposit a fine of Rs. 1,000/- within eight weeks of notice from the Trial Court and if he fails to do so, he shall be sentenced to a period of three months. This amount shall be paid to the Complainant/his family by the Trial Court.

8.

With this modification, the Appeal is dismissed.