Suresh Prasad Singh vs The Central Bureau of Investigation, Dhanbad

Jaya Roy, J.—The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.4.2006 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, XIIIth, Dhanbad in R.C. No. 16A/01D whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months u/s 7 of P.C. Act and further sentenced him to undergo imprisonment of one year u/s 13(2) of P.C. Act. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The prosecution case in brief is that Alijan Mian and Ram Prasad Sharma filed two separate complaint petitions before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Dhanbad on 6.11.2001 alleging therein that the accused appellant, Suresh Prasad Singh had demanded Rs. 100/- from each of them as illegal gratification for delivery of cheque issued in their favour towards payment of bonus for the year 2000-2001. Thereafter, the said complaint petition was referred to the S.I., C.B.I. (P.W. 8) for verification. After verification he submitted the verification report (Ext.-13) and the complainants were found genuine and correct. Thereafter, the case was instituted against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On taking up the investigation, P.W. 9 made arrangement to lay a trap on the aforesaid accused. The office of the koyla Nagar Town Administration, BCCL, Dhanbad was contacted and requested to send two officers/officials to the office of S.P, CBI, Dhanbad on 6.11.2001 to act as independent witnesses. The Personnel Manager, KNTA, BCCL, Dhanbad was pleased to depute Narendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Technical Superior and Birendra Kumar Lalla, Revenue Inspector for this purpose. A team of CBI officials was constituted and the complainants Alijan Mian and Ram Prasad Sharma were introduced to all including the aforesaid independent witnesses. The procedure for lying the trap and used of chemical powder were explained to the member of the team by practical demonstration. The two complainants were asked to produce Rs. 100/- each as the said amounts were brought by them to pay the same to the accused Suresh Prasad Singh as illegal gratification. The numbers of G.C. Notes were noted in the preliminary memorandum and the said notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder thereafter, the said notes handed over to the complainant Alijan Mian and Ram Prasad Sharma for giving the same to the accused appellant when he will demand the money, according to the arranged plan. Thereafter, all the team members went to the office of the accused appellant but at that time as the counter was closed all them entered through the platform. Alijan and the Ram Prasad Sharma both the complainants accompanied by the C.B.I., officers, entered into the office. Thereafter, Ram Prasad Sharma demanded the cheque from the accused appellant on which the accused appellant asked as to whether they have brought Rs. 100/-. On this, both the complainants handed over the two notes of hundred rupee thereafter the accused appellant took the signature of the complainants on the pay sheet and gave them their cheques. The accused appellant kept the aforesaid notes in the pocket of the shirt, on being signal, the C.B.I. officers immediately caught hold the appellant and recovered the aforesaid two currency notes from his pocket. The trap party after doing due formalities, arrested the accused appellant and the case was registered against him. After completing the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against him under the aforesaid sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution has examined ten witnesses to prove the prosecution case. They are namely P.W. 1 Alijan Mian (complainant), P.W. 2 Ram Prasad Sharma (complainant), P.W. 3 Birendra Kumar Lala (shadow witness), P.W. 4 Narendra Kumar Sinha (shadow witness), P.W. 5 Neeraj Verma (sanctioning authority), P.W. 6 B.C. Purkait (Expert of CFSL), PW. 7 Kumar Abu Baker (Senior Divisional Cashier), P.W. 8 Rajesh Kumar Prasad (Verifying Officer), P.W. 9 Umesh Kumar (I.O.), P.W. 10 Ramadhar Mahto and defence has examined two witnesses namely D.W. 1 Radha Prasad Verma, D.W. 2 Kaushal Kishore Singh.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the court below has failed to consider that P.W. 5 has granted sanction for prosecution against the accused appellant without having any material before him. Therefore, the sanction accorded without any basis and on this score alone, the appellant accused should have been acquitted.

Mr. Sinha has further submitted that P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are the independent eye witnesses (shadow witnesses). There are major contradictions in their evidence regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the money from the accused appellant. P.W. 3 has stated in para-29 of his evidence, he did not entered into the room of the accused appellant at first. When the signal was given by the complainant and money was already given to the accused appellant and both the complainant told that money has been accepted only then he entered into the room of the accused appellant. He has further stated that he has seen the acceptance of the money. Mr. Sinha has contended when this witness entered into the room/counter of the appellant after acceptance of the money, it is not possible for him to say whether he has heard the appellant demanding any money from the complainant or accepting the same from the complainant and even it is not possible for him to see the acceptance part. It is further contended that this witness (P.W. 3) has stated regarding the recovery that he had taken out the two tainted currency notes from the pocket of the accused appellant. Thereafter, he tallied the number of the currency notes with the numbers of notes mentioned in the Pre-trap Memorandum. After the said recovery, he kept the said two currency notes in two envelopes and sealed the said envelopes.

Mr. Sinha has further contended that the other eye witness P.W. 4 has also stated in para-6 that he was asked to take out the money from the pocket of the accused appellant and he did so. Thereafter, numbers of said currency notes tallied with the numbers written in the Pre-trap Memorandum and numbers were found same. Thereafter, the said currency notes were kept in two envelopes which were sealed thereafter. Therefore, the witness nos. 3 and 4 both have claimed that they have taken out the currency notes from the appellant but the prosecution case is that only Birendra Kumar Lala (P.W. 3) has recovered the amount from the pocket of the accused appellant. Thus, the evidence of the P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 cast a great doubt in respect of recovery of the amount from the accused appellant and also falsifying the entire story of the prosecution.

It is also contended that P.W. 4 entered into the room after getting signal from the Alijan and he entered into the room of the accused appellant from the backside. It is clear from his statement that he had entered after the alleged occurrence taken place and he has not stated that he was at a such position from where he can hear and see the accused appellant. Therefore, his evidence regarding demand and acceptance is doubtful.

Mr. Sinha has further contended that there are contradictory statements with regard to the time of trap proceeding in the trap memo as well as in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 as the C.B.I. official raided the office of appellant at 16.30 hours as per-trap memo whereas P.W. 1 in para-5 of cross-examination has specifically stated that at 15.45 hours, he alongwith P.W. 2 and others went to the office of the appellant and P.W. 3 in his cross-examination at para-7 has stated that they reached station at about 15.30 hours. Thus, time of the alleged occurrence is also not certain.

Mr. Sinha has pointed out that there is glaring contradiction with respect to the place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is counter no. 7, whereas P.W. 7 in his deposition at para-2 has stated that he and appellant was working at counter no. 11 and not in counter no. 7 as alleged.

Mr. Sinha has further pointed out that the P.W. 1 namely Alijan Mian (Complainant) has stated in his evidence at para-22 that he had made a written complaint to C.B.I. and another complainant P.W. 2 namely Ram Prasad Sharma (complainant) has also complained but both of them jointly signed in one complaint petition but surprising, the C.B.I., has produced two separate complaints of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 which cast a doubt on the prosecution case.

Mr. Mokhtar Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. has stated that the prosecution has only to prove the trap proceeding and in this case prosecution has proved the same. It is also submitted that all the formalities regarding pre-trap, trap and post-trap have been done properly and the prosecution has proved the case against the accused appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment needs no interference.

I have gone through the materials on record and document marked Exhibits and evidence of the witnesses. The sanction order which is Exhibit-4 clearly shows that the sanctioning authority after examining the materials, has given the sanction order. Thus, there is no illegality in the sanction order.

The evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are admittedly contradictory to each other in respect of recovery of the tainted currency notes from the pocket of the accused appellant as pointed out by Mr. Sinha. I find further none of the shadow witnesses has stated that they were in such a position that they could see the demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same by the accused appellant, on the other hand they have stated very specifically that they entered into the room of the accused appellant after getting the signal from the Alijan (one of the complainants) and the said signal was given after acceptance of the tainted currency notes. Therefore, it casts doubt on the prosecution case. It is well settled principle that corroboration is very much essential in a case like this for what actually transpired at the time of alleged occurrence and the evidence of the independent witnesses is of much more important. As discussed above, there are contradictions in respect of the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused appellant in the evidence of aforesaid independent witnesses i.e. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4. Furthermore, regarding the demand and acceptance except evidence of both the complainants, none of the independent witnesses has specifically stated about the same. Therefore, it can not be said that the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance by the accused appellant which is very much essential for the proof of the aforesaid charges made against the appellant. Furthermore, regarding recovery there are contradictory statements of the independent witnesses.

From the documents marked Exhibit, I find the complaint petitions (Exts.-1 and 3) filed by both the complainants on 6.11.2001 and verification report (Ext.-10) which shows the verification was done on 6.11.2001 and Pre-trap memorandum (Ext.-14) and Recovery Memorandum (Ext.-11) both are dated 6.11.2001. Both the complainants have stated in their complaint petition that they went to the accused appellant on 6.11.2001 for demanding their due bonus amount and thereafter they have filed a joint complaint petition on the same day. This fact clearly proves that the entire episode starting from the filing of the complaint before the C.B.I. authorities to recovery of the amount in trap proceeding has completed in one day i.e. 6.11.2001 and that too after opening of the Railway counter of the accused appellant and by 4.30 P.M. on the same day. This also casts a doubt on the prosecution case. Therefore, as it is evident from the evidence and materials on record as discussed earlier, the prosecution case is also not free from doubt. Considering all these aspects, I find prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I giving benefit of doubt, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.4.2006 passed by the Special Judge, CBI-cum Addl. Sessions Judge, XIIIth, Dhanbad in R.C. No. 16A/01D and as the appellant is on bail, is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds.