IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Dhanwant Sharan, son of late Gopal Sharan – Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 194 of 1999
Decided On: 12.10.2012
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 20-Bribery-Presumption-It is sufficient if accused succeeds in proving preponderance of probability in favour of his case-It is not necessary for accused person to prove case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty-Burden of complainant against whom presumption is made under Section 20 is not akin to that of burden placed on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt-Preponderance of probability can be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 48)
1979(4) SCC 725; (2011)6 SCC 450; (1979)4 SCC 526-Relied.
The appellant, Dhanwant Sharan, suffered conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the 1988 Act", for short) by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 42 of 1992.
2. The learned Special Judge sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the 1988 Act. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.6.1992 one Prabhunath Prasad made a written complaint to the Inspector General-cum-Special Secretary, Vigilance Department, Patna in which he had alleged that Sri R.N. Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate and Sri Dhanwant Sharan, a Sub-Inspector of Police posted in the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna ("BSRTC", for short) were engaged in economic exploitation of private bus owners. They indulged in detaining private buses on flimsy grounds and releasing the same only after extorting money from the bus owners.
4. It has further been alleged that about 20 days ago said R.N. Singh and Dhanwant Sharan had detained a bus bearing Registration No. BRD-8461 belonging to his master Rajeshwar Singh near Gandhi Setu and the bus was released only after assurance was given to purchase readymade clothes for the son of the Special Judicial Magistrate, R.N. Singh. As promised on the same day in the evening, the bus owner, namely, Rajeshwar Singh took the son of R.N. Singh to Maurya Lok Complex, Patna on his Maruti Car and purchased readymade clothes worth Rs.1,600/- for him. Again on 23.6.1992, the same bus was detained by aforesaid R.N. Singh and the appellant near Mahatama Gandhi Setu at about 9 a.m. They seized the papers of the bus.
5. The complainant Prabhunath Prasad further states in his written report that on 23.6.1992 at about 5 p.m., he met Sri R.N. Singh, Special Judicial Magistrate at his residence in Kankarbagh Colony and requested him to release the papers of the vehicle. Sri Singh told him to meet the appellant in that regard. Accordingly, the complainant met the appellant at his residence in Kankarbagh (Hanuman Nagar). The appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/- for releasing the papers, of the vehicle. He told that they have purchased clothes worth Rs. 1,600/- for the son of the Special Magistrate and they must pay at least Rs. 500/- to him and only thereafter, he would release the papers. He also told that out of Rs. 500/- he will have to pay some amount to the Magistrate concerned.
6. Lastly, it has been stated in the written complaint that since the complainant and his master Rajeshwar Singh do not want to pay• the bribe money to the appellant and R.N. Singh an appropriate action be taken after holding an enquiry into the matter.
7. The Inspector General of the Vigilance Investigation Bureau endorsed the aforesaid complaint to the officer-in-charge, Vigilance Police Station at Patna. The Officer-in-charge of Vigilance Police Station directed one Harishankar Singh (P.W. 1), Inspector of Vigilance Police Station, to verify the allegations made in the complaint petition and submit a report. P.W. 1 Harishankar Singh, who was entrusted with the verification of the allegations made in the written complaint submitted his report to the Inspector General-cum-Special Secretary, Cabinet (Vigilance) Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna on 24.6.1992, in which, he has stated that he proceeded with the complainant at 1 p.m. on 24.6.1992 from the Vigilance Headquarter to the office of the BSRTC situated at Birchand Patel Path, Patna. He reached there at 2.30 p.m. At that time, several persons were present near the appellant Dhanwant Sharan and as such no negotiation could be made. At about 4 p.m. he ag
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.