Back
2001 Supreme(Pat) 858
PATNA HIGH COURT
P.N.Yadav, J.
Sheo Kumar Srivastava
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1990 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
The main legal point established is that consistent and corroborative evidence, along with the validity of prosecution procedures, can lead to the conviction of a public servant for corruption.
Headnote:
Corruption - Public Servant - Indian Penal Code Section 161, Prevention of Corruption Act Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from an unemployed youth seeking contractor registration. The prosecution presented evidence of the demand, acceptance, and recovery of the bribe money, leading to the appellant's conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on consistent and corroborative evidence from various witnesses, including the trap party members and the complainant. The court also upheld the validity of the prosecution's sanction for the appellant's prosecution.
Issues: The key issues were whether the appellant was a public servant and whether he demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The court found that the appellant was a public servant and that he did demand and accept the bribe money.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and corroborative evidence from witnesses, the validity of the prosecution's sanction, and the absence of phenolphthalein powder usage as grounds for the appellant's conviction.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to deposit the fine within two months or face imprisonment for three months.
P.N.YADAV, J.
1. The appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) as well as under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under the second count, both the substantive sentences, having been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the first information report and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was, in brief, as follows :
The appellant was a public servant working as Head Assistant in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation, Boring Canal Road, Patna during the relevant period of time. The complainant Braj Bihari Mishra (PW 14) was an unemployed youth. As he did not get employment he decided to become a contractor. He approached the appellant for getting his name registered as a contractor. The appellant, who dealt with the matter regarding registration of such contractor asked him to produce certain papers and certificates in token of deposit of a sum of Rs. 40,000/- by him in the Bank. He also demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs. 900/- for getting his work done. PW 14 was not ready and willing to make payment of illegal gratification and as such he lodged a complaint (Ext. 7) with the DIG, Vigilance, Patna on 18.4.1985. The DIG on the same day appointed and directed Zahir Ahmad. Inspector Vigilance (PW 6) to verify the allegation levelled by PW 14 against the appellant. Thereafter on 18.4.1985 itself PW 6 along with PW 14 went to the office of the appellant. PW 14 talked to the appellant in connection with his registration as a contractor. The appellant handed over a form of registration for a sum of Rs. 10/- to PW 14 and he asked him to pay the demanded money worth Rs. 900/-as consideration for getting his name registered as contractor in presence of PW 6. Thereafter on the same day PW 6 submitted his verification report (Ext. 1). On the basis of the complaint of PW 14 and report of PW 6 the case was registered.
3. On the next day i.e. on 19.4.1985 in accordance with the direction of the DIG, Vigilance a raiding party headed by Arvind Prasad, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW 7) with Baidehi Sharan Mishra,. Special Magistrate (PW 10), Ram Dayal Singh (PW 1), Md. Sarwar Khan (PW 2), Md. Nizam (PW 3), Ram Kumar Prasad (PW 4), Jang Bahadur Sao (PW 5), Zahir Ahmad (PW6), Pramod Kumar Singh (PW 8), Lal Bahadur Singh (PW 9). Sharda Nand Singh (PW 11) as its members was organised to lay a trap to catch hold of the appellant red handed while accepting illegal gratification.
4. As per instruction the complainant (PW 14), Zahir Ahmad (PW 6) on 19.4.1985 at about 11.15 AM appeared before the Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance (PW 7) in his office where the Special Magistrate (PW 10) was also present and he produced a sum Rs. 900/- consisting of nine GC notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-each. PW 7 prepared a memorandum (Ext. 2) of the currency notes with their numbers noted thereon and he returned the currency notes to the complainant (PW 14) and directed him to hand over the same to the appellant only on demand. The verifier Zahir Ahmad was instructed to remain present with PW 14 and see the transaction and to give signal by wiping his face with handkerchief after the appellant accepted the bribe money. Thereafter the trap party swung into action and proceeded to the office of the appellant, PW 14 and PW 6 leaving behind the members of raiding party went ahead and they entered into the office of the appellant. The other members of the raiding party including the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Special Magistrate followed PWs 6 and 14 an
