Point of Law: Criminal Law - Demand of illegal gratification - Benefit of doubt - Absence of essential ingredient of demand of bribe, presumption in this case under Section 20 of Act, 1988 - Thus this is a fit case where appellant- convict be acquitted of the charges framed against him in this case by giving him benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 05.12.2011 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Dhanbad in R.C. Case No. 24 (A)/04 R whereby and where under the learned court below has held appellant-convict guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one and half years for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further sentenced to Simple Imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for each of the offences i.e. in total Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days for each offences and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Sohan Prasad Gupta was working as an E.D.M.C. in Raj Chainpur Sub- Post Office, Palamau. The appellant- convict was working as Sub-Divisional Inspector of Post Offices, East Subdivision, Daltonganj. It is alleged that the appellant-convict used to demand illegal gratification of Rs. 2000/- for sending a favourable report to the Superintendent of the Post Offices on the application of the complainant to post the complainant in the vacant post of Postman in I.E. Sudna Branch Post Office. On 25.10.2004 when the complainant approached the appellant-convict, the appellant-convict told the complainant that the complainant has to pay Rs. 700/- as the 1st installment of the bribe amount of Rs. 2000/- and then only the appellant- convict would send the favourable report to the Superintendent of Post Offices. As the complainant did not want to give money, he lodged a complaint with the S.P. C.B.I. Ranchi. The inspector of C.B.I. Ranchi Sri. S.K. Sinha verified the facts of the complaint and submitted his report confirming the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant-convict as alleged in the written complaint submitted by the complainant. On the basis of the report submitted by Sri. S.K. Sinha this case has been registered. Investigation of the case was entrusted to him. A trap was successfully conducted on 29.10.2004. The appellant-convict was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs. 700/-. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellant-convict. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-convict to which he pleaded not guilty and thus was put to trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 12 witnesses while 2 witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.

5. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-6 is the complainant himself. He has stated about the contents of his complaint submitted to the S.P. CBI. He also stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. He further deposed that they reached the residence of the appellant-convict at 12:30 PM. It is pertinent to mention here that the PW-6 did not mention the date on which they went for the trap. The PW-6 further deposed that upon knocking of the door the appellant-convict came out and enquired as to what the matter was. The PW-6 wished the appellant-convict and told that he has brought the money demanded by the appellant-convict and offered the appellant-convict to take the said money. The appellant was hesitant to receive the money on seeing PW-4. The PW-6 again told that he has brought Rs. 700/- and asked the appellant-convict to take the same and also told tha