JUDGMENT :

Tirthankar Ghosh, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2019 passed by the Learned Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Siliguri in Special (CBI) Court Case No. 34 of 2012 arising out of RC Case No. 05(A)/2004-Kol of CBI, Kolkata dated 04.02.2004 corresponding to FIR No. RC.CAA2004A 0005 dated 04.02.2004 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein the learned Trial Court was pleased to hold the appellant guilty for commission of offence and punished him under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment of one year and to pay of fine of Rs.2,000/-i.d. to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The Initiation of RC.CAA2004A 0005 dated 04.02.2004 was on the basis of a complaint lodged by Barnali Banerjee (Chakraborty) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’). The complainant stated that in the month of September, 2003 she was appointed as a dance teacher at Central School (Kendriya Vidyalaya), Sevoke Road, Siliguri, District-Darjeeling with a contract of Rs.200/-per day. On 29.01.2004 when she had been to school then S.D. Sharma, Principal of the said Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sevoke Road, Siliguri demanded as bribe from her a sum of Rs.1300/-per month out of her monthly salary to be paid for continuation of her contract as a dance teacher in the said school. The complainant alleges that the Principal told her that she should pay him the said amount of Rs.1300/-on 05.02.2004 afternoon in his office chamber at school. She was further threatened by the Principal that if she did not pay him the said amount of Rs.1300/-on 05.02.2004 then he would terminate her from the service as a dance teacher. Complainant alleged that she did not intend to pay the said bribe of Rs.1300/-to Sri S.D. Sharma, Principal of the school and a legal action may be taken against him. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint FIR was registered and the police authorities on conclusion of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant Suresh Dutt Sharma under Section 7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was contended in the charge-sheet that during investigation it revealed that the complainant was appointed as dance teacher on contractual basis and accordingly she joined the said school on 15.09.2003 and her salary was fixed @ Rs.50/-per teaching period subject to maximum limit of Rs.200/-per day. On 29.01.2004 the appellant demanded bribe alleged in the written complaint. A trap was laid as per pre trap memorandum and accused was caught red handed. During post trap proceeding one Jayoti Roy intervened and alleged that the accused also took Rs.850/-from her as bribe for allowing her to continue her service in the school on contract basis and said money was recovered from the accused in presence of witnesses on same day.

3. On conclusion of investigation the investigating agency submitted charge-sheet under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the present appellant. After supply of the documents on which the prosecution proposed to rely the learned trial Court was pleased to frame charges under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The contents of the charges were read over to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon 10 witnesses which included PW1, Sibananda Bhattacharjee, a retired Bank Manager who was a witness of the recovery of trap money and trap procedure; PW2, Smt. Arati Darnal, a Senior assistant of SBI who was a shadow witness and who stated to have witnessed demand and acceptance of bribe and seen recovery of trap money and other post trap procedure; PW3, Barnali Banerjee (Chakraborty), complainant; PW4, Jayoti Roy, teacher of same school; PW5, Bimal Chandra Purkait, Chemical examiner who reported regarding pheno