JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiya, learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 1973, against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the leaned Special Judge, Assam in Special Case No. 1/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(herein after referred to as ‘P.C. Act,) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6(six) months and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2(two) months.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 23.09.1998, the informant lodged an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Darrang, Mangaldoi stating inter alia that on that day at about 8.15 a.m., while he was at Mangaldoi Circuit House in room No. 7 along with the then Executive Magistrate Sri N.D. Patowary. At that time the accused/appellant entered into the said room and identified himself as the father of one Md. Dulu and requested him to delete the name of his son from Mongaldoi P.S. Case No.239/1998 under Section 379 I.P.C. who was involved in the said theft case and he offered Rs.500/-in cash as gratification in presence of said Executive Magistrate Shri N.D. Patowary. Thereafter, the Magistrate Shri N.D. Patorwary interfered in that matter and seized the money from the hand of the appellant.

4. On receipt of the complaint, a case was registered vide Mongaldoi Police Station Case No. 281/1998 under Section 12 of P.C. Act r/w Section 120(B) I.P.C. and accordingly it was entrusted with one Shri Muslesh Uddin Ahmed, D.S.P.(H.Q.), Mongaldoi to investigate the case. The appellant was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant under Section 12 of P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly trial was initiated in the court of Special Judge, Assam at Guwahati.

5. During trial prosecution examined as many as 8(eight) witnesses who were cross-examined by the defence. On the other hand, the accused/appellant also adduced one witness in support of his case. After completion of trial, the statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses were put to him to which he denied the same. After hearing the argument advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, the judgment was delivered by convicting the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal challenging the judgment and order of the Special Judge, Assam, dated 29.08.2011.

6. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant has argued that there are lots of contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. P.W.4 who was the informant in the case, the then DSP of Assam Police and it is not believable that the accused/appellant directly entered into the alleged room No.7 of Mangaldoi Circuit House while the said DSP and one Shri N.D. Patowary, Executive Magistrate were sitting therein and offered bribe of Rs.500/-to an unknown person like DSP in presence of another unknown person like Executive Magistrate, Mangoldoi without any hesitation.

7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Speical Judge, Assam has failed to appreciate the evidence of seizure witnesses because none of the seizure witnesses had stated that they had seen the accused/appellant while giving money to the informant as such, the impugned judgment suffers miscarriage of justice and the same is not sustainable in law.

8. Mr. Rajbarbhuiya, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the offence under Section 7 or Section 13 of P.C. Act itself has not been established and hence, there is no question of offence under Section 12 of P.C. Act being committed by the appellant. He contends that there has to be first an independent finding that the offence u