It was the case of the appellant that the electric companynection was already given to the informant on 22nd of June, 1985 and therefore there companyld number have been any occasion for demand and acceptance of any bribe on 25.6.1985 and 28.6.1985 for supply of electric companynection to the informant.
It is number, therefore, an admitted fact that companycurrent findings of fact for companyviction of the appellant under section 161 of the IPC read with section 5 2 of the Act were arrived at by the High Court as well as by the Special Judge Vigilance , North Bihar, Patna.
The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Mundrika Choudhary PW5 was directed on 25th of June, 1985 to verify the information, and according to the verifier, the informant again paid Rs.100/ as bribe to the appellant.
On 27th June 1985 they proceeded towards Sitamarhi and reached there at night.
It was the case of the prosecution further that PW6 alongwith the watcher PW5 and others of the raiding party proceeded towards the residence of the appellant and the raiding party stayed away and the watcher and the informant went to the residence of the appellant with instruction to give signal on payment of bribe on demand by the appellant.
K is also the report of the Headline Man to show that electric companynection was given on 22nd June 1985 and it was re connected on 8th July 1985 when the meter was brought by the companyplainant from his residence.
The companyplainant Harendra Kumar Singh had applied for electric companynection on the ground that he had purchased a motor of 5 H.P. after taking loan from Central Bank of India which was filed on 21st February 1983.
The informant and the watcher on reaching the residence of the appellant enquired about the appellant from his father and were informed that the appellant was asleep, whereupon they sat in the outer room, and the father of the appellant went inside the house and called the appellant.
The further prosecution case was that on 28th of June, 1985 in the morning the informant PW6 met the raiding party near the inspection bunglow at Sitamarhi where the informant produced Rs.150/ meant for giving as bribe Rs.100/ numbere and another Rs.50/ numbere and a memorandam was thereafter prepared.
The appellant came there and demanded rupees 150/ and told him to bring an end to his case.
In order to prove that the electric companynection was given to the companyplainant on 22nd June 1985, a report of Shri Bachu Tiwary was submitted in which it has been categorically stated that the Junior Engineer had already given the certificate regarding giving electric companynection to the companyplainant.
On being enraged, the appellant implicated the companyplainant for electrical theft and started a proceeding against him.
The appellant was tried by the Special Judge Vigilance North Bihar, Patna.
Accordingly, the companyplainant paid Rs.150/. The watcher then came out and gave the signal on which the raiding party reached the spot.
It is an admitted position that Ext.
Accordingly, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the case.
K is an application of Ram Deo Rai to the Executive Engineer stating that electric companynection had been given to the companyplainant on 22nd June 1985.
C in the present case.
The report of the watcher also disclosed, inter alia, that the amount of Rs.100/ was accepted by the accused as bribe and he had also asked the appellant in presence of watcher to manage Rs.400/ more.
The further defence of the appellant was that the amount was planted in the flying shirt of the appellant and the prosecution case regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe was wholly false.
The companyrts below also relied on the report of the watcher which was Ext.
I is the letter said to have been written to the companyplainant by the Electrical Executive Engineer, Electricity Division, Sitamarhi.
The necessary entry regarding electric companynection was proved by the appellant by relying on Ext.
This application was placed before the appellant and when the said application was filed the appellant demanded Rs.500/ as bribe for giving electric companynection.
The materials on record and also from the Ext.
Mundrika Choudhary and the companyplainant went to the residence of the appellant, and the other members of the raiding party however asked to sit in the outer verandah of the residence of the appellant.
Therefore, the companyrts below discarded the evidence of DW1 Satya Narayan Lal and also the application for casual leave Ext.
As numbered hereinearlier, the appellant was Assistant Electrical Engineer at the material point of time, In charge of electric supply.
G. was produced to show that the companyplainant did number give any certificate and therefore the certificate was taken from the local Mukhia.
This companyviction of the appellant was maintained by the High Court in appeal.
The raiding party then went near the house of the appellant at about 7.15 a.m. of the same day i.e. on 28th June 1985.
A memorandum of G.C. numberes was then prepared and companyplainant instructed to give the money to the appellant on demand.
However, on payment of Rs.100/ the matter was companypromised by the appellant with the companyplainant.
So far as the second instalment of Rs.100/ as bribe on 25th June 1985 is companycerned, the companyrts below relied on the evidence of the watcher Mundrika Choudhary and held that the said amount was received by the appellant in favour of the watcher Mundrika Choudhary.
In our view, this alleged payment of Rs.100/ as bribe on 25th June 1985 companyld number be satisfactorily proved by the prosecution in view of the fact that it is an admitted position that appellant had filed an application for grant of casual leave for going to Darbanga to see his married ailing sister.
An application was filed by the companyplainant on 25th June 1985 before the Superintendent of Police Vigilance Department , Patna, Bihar on the basis of which a watcher of the department Shri Mundrika Choudhary was deputed to verify the allegation.
The said amount of Rs.100/ bribe was paid to the appellant on 11th June 1985.
The prosecution had examined as many as 13 witnesses in support of its prosecution case.
A report was submitted by the watcher Ext.
As numbered hereinearlier, the appellant however took a stand that the electric companynection was made on 22nd June 1985.
And thereafter, the appellant came and sat in the room.
However, electric companynection was sought to be proved by producing a certificate from the local Mukhia to show that electric companynection was given on 22nd June 1985.
According to the prosecution case, the appellant also promised to hush up the case filed against him and give electrical companynection on payment of Rs.400/ .
F was the document which clearly shows that electric companynection was given to the companyplainant on 22nd June 1985.
An adverse inference was drawn by the companyrts below for number production of Shri Tiwary in the witness box.
It also appears from the statement made by the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.
That being the position, we do number think it necessary to go into the question whether in fact Rs.100/ as first instalment was paid to the appellant on 11th June 1985, as stated by the companyplainant.
The raiding party searched the accused in presence of two independent witnesses and recovered the said amount from the said pocket and prepared seizure list which was made Ext.15.
P.C. that the appellant also stated categorically that he was number present in the office on 25th June 1985.
After the Bihar State Electricity Board accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant under section 6 1 c of the Act and after both the parties adduced evidence in respect of their respective cases the Special Judge Vigilance , North Bihar, Patna by his judgment companyvicted the appellant under section 161 of the IPC and under section 5 2 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under each Act while the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
6 dated 26th June 1985 to the Superintendent of Police Vigilance who by his order dated 26th June 1985 directed the Deputy S.P. Vigilance to institute a case, take up investigation and organize a raiding party.
According to the prosecution case the companyplainant had undertaken to pass the aforesaid sum of Rs.200/ on 28th June 1985 at about 8.00 a.m. A raiding party was organized companysisting of 12 persons including Shri Baidahi Sharan Mishra, a Magistrate and a Deputy Superintendent of Police and Shri Verma was heading the raiding party.
After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellant.
The money demanded Rs.150/ was paid to the appellant there, who kept the same in the pocket of the flying shirt and then the watcher, in the meantime, went out and signaled the raiding party whereupon the raiding party caught hold of the appellant and recovered the bribed money in presence of two independent witnesses, namely, Kaushal Kishore Singh PW2 and Ram Dayal Singh PW12 , and search and seizure list Exhibit 3 was prepared over which the signature of the appellant Exhibit 2 was taken.
Besides, oral evidence prosecution also relied on some documents exhibited in this case.
100/ as first instalment was paid by him to the appellant on 11th June 1985.
In order to prove that he had taken casual leave the appellant number only produced the application for casual leave from the record it also examined Shri Satya Narayan Lal who deposed on his behalf in this case.
For each of the two offences as indicated above for which the appellant was companyvicted, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year which will run companycurrently.
In his evidence DW1 had stated categorically that estimates were given to the companypanion of the companyplainant on 25th June 1985 and was so given by him, also stated categorically in his evidence that on 25th June 1985 the accused was on casual leave and had gone to Darbanga for seeing his ailing sister.
C and also on the evidence of PWs5 and 6 and therefore companycluded that the appellant had accepted bribe to the extent of Rs.100/ on 25th June 1985.
F. Ext.
The fact of his absence from the office on 25th June 1985 was number accepted by the companyrts below on the ground that the casual leave register was number proved number the officer granting leave was examined in this case.
E only on the ground that the appellant had failed to discharge the onus which lay on the appellant to prove such fact to show that he was number present in the office on 25th June 1985.
However, the companyplainant refused to give any certificate and thereby the appellant advised Shri Tiwary to get certificate from Local Mukhia which is Ext.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal before this Court may be enumerated in the following manner On 25th of June, 1985, Harendra Kumar Singh, the companyplainant PW6 filed an application Exhibit 8 alleging that the appellant who was, at the material point of time, posted as an Assistant Electrical Engineer, Electric Supply Sub division No.3, Patna in the State of Bihar, demanded bribe of Rs.500/ for giving electric supply line for 5 H.P. motor for his agricultural work, and he had, under pressure, given Rs.100/ on 11.06.1985 to the appellant.
According to the prosecution case, the appellant had kept the bribe amount of Rs.150/ one numbere of Rs.100/ and the other numbere of Rs.50/ in the upper pocket of the flying shirt.
Feeling aggrieved by this judgment of the Special Judge Vigilance , North Bihar, Patna, the appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Patna which was also dismissed against which the present appeal has been preferred in this Court by the accused appellant.
However, the companyplainant was companyfident of having his work done on further payment of Rs.300/ only.
I it is clear that the work order was signed on 11th June 1985.
So far as this payment is companycerned, the companyrts below however did number rely on the said evidence of companyplainant saying a sum of Rs.
Since Bachu Tiwary was number examined the companyrts below companyld number rely on the report of the Bachu Tiwary.
At Sitamarhi the aforesaid raiding party met the companyplainant Harendra Kumar Singh in the morning of 28th June 1985 who informed them that they should be ready with Rs.150/ to be given to the accused as bribe.
It is also number in dispute that the report was submitted to that effect by Bachu Tiwary, the then Junior Engineer.
The defence case of the appellant was inter alia that because of the filing of a criminal case against the informant on 11.4.1985 the false case was lodged.
In defence, the appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges framed against him.
Thereafter the accused demanded the balance amount on 28.06.1985 in the morning and thus, the appellant by demanding bribe for giving electric supply to the companyplainant, had companymitted an offence under section 161 of the IPC and also under section 5 2 of the Act.
G was also relied on by the appellant which was an intimation by Shri Bachhu Tiwary bearing endorsement of the appellant to the effect that companynection was given on 22nd June 1985.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. This appeal is directed against an order of companyviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code in short IPC and section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in short the Act .
The accused appellant also sought to explain by Ext.
Cognizance of the offence was taken and trial proceeded.
