IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Minimum sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which has been enhanced by Act 1 of 2014 with effect from 16-1-2014, will not be applicable to cases in which incident relates to period prior to said date.

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.—Heard the parties.

Though this appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 02 (A)/ 1997(R), Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict submits that in continuation to the submissions made by him before this court on 16.11.2021 the appellant-convict does not want to contest this appeal on merit and he confines his arguments only to sentence imposed upon the appellant-convict by the trial court in the impugned judgment and order of sentence.

2. By the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 02 (A)/ 1997-R, the learned court has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under following offences and had sentenced them as indicated below:-

3. The brief facts of this case is that the appellant-convict while functioning as the Director (purchase and transport) in the office of the Engineer-in-chief, RCD, Government of Bihar, Patna, in flagrant disregard to the procedures, processed and recommended the issuance of supply order for 1500 MT bulk bitumen to the RCD, Chatra Division, having knowledge about the previous supply order for the said division and he never dissented to the proposal for supply of bitumen in order to process the same and for this act of commission, he accepted the illegal gratification from the transporter co-convict, D.N. Singh at the rate of Rs.10 per MT.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined forty-six witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked as Exhibits 1 to 60 and several documents have also been marked as X to X/40. From the side of the defence also, one witness has been examined as D.W.1 and from the side of the defence, the documents were proved which have been marked as Exhibits A to Exhibit J and J/1 and further, two documents have been marked as Y and Y/1.

5. Learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence in the record, observed that the appellant-convict admitted that he was the Director (purchase and transport) in the office of the Engineer-in-chief, RCD, Government of Bihar, Patna in additional charge during the relevant period but the fact that in absence of any requisition for bulk bitumen from the RCD, Chatra and as without mentioning in his noting about any requirement of bulk bitumen for RCD Chatra, he was instrumental in placing order for supply by issuing the supply order though there was no capacity for storage of the aforesaid bulk bitumen nor the allotted fund was sufficient; even then, the said supply order was issued by the appellant-convict in favour of the co-convict transporter and basing on these circumstances and the evidence in the record in this respect, learned court below held him guilty for the said offences and convicted and sentenced him, as already indicated above.

6. Ms. Nitu Sinha, the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation defends the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that as there is ample evidence in the record to bring home the charges hence neither the judgment of conviction nor the order of sentence warrants interference in this appeal and submits that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Since the appeal is not contested on merit hence this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly the impugned judgment of c