JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 17.02.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II-cum-Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Cyber Cases and Electricity Act, Dhanbad, in Special (Vigilance) Case No. 11 of 2011 by which the appellant has been held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and it was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Fines were with default clauses.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant-Raju Khan is owner of several buses including the bus bearing registration no. WB-25D-7378 which plies from Giridih to Kolkata and it is alleged that on 27.03.2011 at G.T. Road near Tundi, the appellant-accused demanded Rs. 50,000/- as bribe from the complainant. The complainant paid Rs. 15,000/- but the appellant-accused did not agree to release the bus on payment of the said Rs. 15,000/- and seized the said bus and prepared a seizure list, despite the fact that the complainant was having all relevant valid documents in respect of the said bus. It is also alleged that the appellant-accused kept all the papers of the bus in his possession and though he seized the bus, still he allowed the complainant to ply the said bus from 27.03.2011 to 06.04.2011. It is further alleged that when the complainant did not pay remaining demanded bribe money, on 07.04.2011, the said bus was seized and kept at Taratand Police Station and the accused-appellant demanded additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- as bribe money. It is also alleged that the accused-appellant used to take money through a middle man namely Dhullu who used to reside in the house of the appellant-accused. The complaint of the complainant was verified by Keshav Kumar Choudhary (PW-7) and on the basis of his verification report dated 13.04.2011, FIR of this case has been registered. The PW-9 being the I.O. of the case took charge of the investigation, obtained the sanction for prosecution of the accused-appellant and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge for the said offences were framed against the appellant-accused and upon his pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 9 witnesses. The accused- appellant did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. PW-1 Amit Kumar is the Special Magistrate and he was a member of the trap team. He has stated that on 13.04.2011 at about 12:30 P.M. he was summoned by the PW-9. A trap team was being constituted. PW-7 introduced the complainant to the PW-1 and briefly stated about the allegations made by the complainant against the appellant-accused as stated in the complaint of the complainant. PW-7 was sent for verification of the said complaint along with the complainant. On 11.04.2011, the complainant and the PW-7 went to the government quarter of the appellant-accused where the appellant-accused stated that he is having the fifteen thousand rupees paid by the complainant and the complainant has to give Rs. 15,000/- more. The complainant told the appellant-accused that he will pay Rs. 10,000/- and the remaining five thousand he will pay later on after earning some money. Police Inspector-Baijnath Singh applied phenolphthalein