JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants along with Mr. Akchansh Kishore and Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocates.

2. Heard Mr. Rohit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI.

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the original appellant, against whom the order of conviction was passed by the learned court below, namely, Ugrah Narayan Singh, has expired during the pendency of this case and his legal heirs have been substituted vide order dated 27.09.2018 who are the present appellants before this court.

4. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2004 passed in R.C. 11(A)/96(R) passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi whereby the original appellant has been held guilty of charge under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1988) and has been convicted for the same and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment of two years under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act of 1988 and also fine of Rs. 8,000/- in default whereof to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for four months and has been sentenced to undergo 2½ years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the aforesaid Act of 1988 and pay fine of Rs. 12,000/- in the district court and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. It has been directed that both the sentences are to run concurrently with period already undergone to be set off.

Case of the prosecution:

5. The case was registered on the basis of written complaint lodged by Sri. Kashi Nath Ram Kashyap, stating that he was appointed on the post of Extra Departmental delivery agent (hereinafter referred to as EDDA) at Hundru and was officiating as a postman in leave vacancy in Doranda Head Post Office since 1995. He alleged that on 26.06.1996 Ugrah Narayan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘accused’) posted as Superintendent of Post Offices, Ranchi met him at Doranda Post Office and told him that he is officiating for a long period in lieu of leave Vacancy and he wants to substitute another person for officiating. The complainant requested the accused that he has performed the marriage of his daughter in the month of April and his economic condition is bad and so, his officiating work may not be terminated. Then, the accused asked the complainant to give @ Rs. 250/- per month, if he wants to continue the officiating work and demanded Rs. 500/- from the complainant as bribe for the month of June and July and asked the complainant to give Rs. 500/- at his office after receiving salary for allowing him to continue in the Leave Vacancy Post. He further alleged that the accused had told him that if he does not pay the demanded bribe, he will discontinue his services in the Leave Vacancy officiating post. It is further the case of the prosecution that as the complainant did not want to give bribe to the accused, so he came to the CBI office Ranchi on 26.06.1996 afternoon and submitted a written complaint. On receipt of this information the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi directed Sri. A.K. Verma, the then Inspector, CBI, Ranchi to verify the allegation levelled in the complaint. In pursuance thereof Sri. A.K. Verma interrogated the complainant and submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi stating therein that the allegation levelled in the complaint appears to be prima facie true and recommended for registration of regular case under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act of 1988, against the accused for investigation. On receipt of the verification report, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Ranchi directed Sri. P.K. Panigrahi, Inspector to register a case under Section 7 of the aforesaid Act of 1988 against the accused and take up investigation. Under his order, Sri. P.K. Panigrahi, Inspector (PW-6) registe