JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2019 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B., West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Vigilance Special case no. 09 of 2014 whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has held the appellant-convict – Sonelal Das guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section-13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six years with fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section-13(2) read with Section-13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, the appellant-convict was to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months but by observing that the offence punishable under Section-13 (2) read with Section-13 (1) (d) is serious offence than the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the trial court did not award any separate sentence for the offence punishable under Section7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant- Jitendra Choubey (P.W.3) submitted a complaint to the Anti-corruption Bureau that his construction company namely Balaji construction company was allotted repair work of Zila school, Chaibasa in the financial year 2013-14 and the said work was done by his company but for payment of the bill of that work, the appellant-convict, who was the Executive Engineer in P.W.D Building Construction, Division was demanding bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The complaint was verified by Jitendra Dubey (P.W.5), an Inspector of Police posted in Anti Corruption Bureau by reaching Chaibasa on 26.03.2014 but the verification was done on 27.03.2014. For the purpose of verification, P.W.5 posed as a Musni (clerk) of the P.W.3 and went to the residential office of the appellant-convict, wherein the appellant-convict demanded bribe of Rs. 1,50,000/- and told that unless the said amount is given to him, the appellant-convict will not give the cheque of 6-7 lakhs rupees. Upon beseeched by P.W.3 the appellant-convict, agreed to receive Rs. 80,000/- as bribe for releasing the cheque payable to the P.W.3. Upon such verification, P.W.5 was satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint and submitted verification report to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. Basing upon the same, F.I.R. of this case has been registered. P.W.8 was entrusted the investigation of the case. A trap team was constituted. Trap was laid on 28.03.2014 and the appellant-convict was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 80,000/-. His hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution and colour of the solution turned pink and same was sent for chemical examination. The sanction for prosecution was obtained. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant-convict for having committed offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section-13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section-13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-accused. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined nine witnesses while the appellant-convict examined himself under Section 315 Code of Criminal Procedure as D.W.1. Out of the nine witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.3- Jitendra Choubey is the complainant of this case. He has deposed that on 26.03.14 he submitted a written application addressed to the Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. at Adrey House, in Ranchi alleging demand of bribe by the appellant-convict. The P.W.5 accompanied the P.W.3 for verification. D