1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th February, 2006 passed by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 66 of 1992/R.C. Case No. 28(A) of 1990. By the impugned judgment, the Court has found the appellant Z.U. Ahmad, a public servant, taking illegal gratification from one B.B. Verma, also a public servant and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct by taking money by corrupt or illegal means. The sole appellant has been convicted by judgment and order dated 17.2.2006 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant will also have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was further convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offences under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the appellant will also have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences are to run concurrently but the punishment given in form of fine under Section 7 and 13(1 )(d) of the Act will be paid by the appellant separately.

2. The appellant was a Government servant employed as Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Danapur. Bipin Bihari Verma, the complainant, was also a Government servant working as Assistant Parcel Clerk, at Patna Junction.

3. The facts in short are that PW-3 B.B. Verma filed a complaint (Exhibit-8) on 18.8.1992 in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna alleging therein that he had received an order of transfer from Patna to Bihta Railway Station on 2.4.1992. Thereafter, he contacted the appellant and requested him to stay/cancel his transfer order. It is alleged that the appellant assured him that he will get his work done with the help of the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent and the Additional Divisional Railway Manager. It was during the talks that Z.U. Ahmad disclosed that the Senior Divisional Commercial Superintendent was ready to cancel the transfer of the complainant on payment of Rs. 5,000/-. The complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs. 5,000/- at one go and as such the appellant agreed to receive Rs, 2,000/- as part payment, and the rest amount was to be paid after the issuance of the cancellation order of transfer.

4. The defence version is complete denial of the prosecution case including the demand of illegal gratification and payment of the same. Specific defence is that the complainant B.B. Verma had a grudge against the appellant as well as some of the Central Bureau of Investigation Officers against whom he had been imposed penalty for traveling without a ticket in the train, particularly Md. Yusuf and some other Police Officers (Exhibits-G & H). It has specifically been stated that B.B. Verma had a tainted service record as he was punished within one year of his joining the service and two consecutive increments were withheld and he was again punished on 11.6.1984 where one increment was withheld. These punishments were entered into his service book (Exhibit-A). It has also been specifically stated that the reason for which the bribe was demanded is non est as the representation to stay the transfer order was already rejected by the concerned superiors i.e. the Additional Divisional Railway Manager and the Divisional Railway Manager. Therefore, there was no occasion for the complainant to approach the appellant to get his order of transfer cancelled and as such the very genesis of the case becomes doubtful as per the defence version.

5. The issues that have been raised in this case are as follows:

(a) the genesis of the occurrence is not true;

(b) no verification took place in the manner as stated by the prosecution