ORDER :

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. The appellant-convict has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 16.04.2014, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I.(A.C.B), Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 05(A)/2009- AHD-R whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence committed under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause of undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause of undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for three months, if the fine amount is not paid and it has also been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant-convict was posted as Security Sub-Inspector of Bhurkunda Project of C.C.L. The complainant (P.W.7) was running a tobacco shop at Sayal More of Bhurkunda. The appellant-convict demolished the shop of the complainant and when the complainant approached him and sought permission to allow him to put his shop, the appellant-convict on 15.05.2009 demanded Rs.1,000/- for permitting the complainant to put his shop and also cautioned him that if the complainant puts his shop without giving the money then the appellant-convict would demolish his shop and would also lodge complaint with police. As the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe, hence, he lodged the complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi. P.W.10 - Ram Kishore Sahu, A.S.I., verified the allegations made in the complaint by going to Sayal More of Bhurkunda in the evening of 15.05.2009. The appellant-convict came near the shop of the informant at about 05:30 P.M. and enquired from the complainant in presence of the P.W.10, whether the complainant has arranged the money, about which the appellant-convict told him in the morning of that day. The complainant replied that he was trying to arrange the money. Upon which, the appellant-convict told that in the next day evening, he would come to that place and the complainant has to pay the money to him at that time and after that the complainant can freely run his tobacco shop there but again said that if the complainant will not give the money then the appellant-convict would complain to the police against the complainant(P.W.7). The P.W.10 submitted his verification report which has been marked Ext.13 and on the basis of the report submitted by the P.W.10, the F.I.R. of this case was registered. The complaint of the complainant (P.W.7) has been marked Ext. 11 and the formal F.I.R. has been marked Ext. 14. A trap was successfully conducted on 16.05.2009. The appellant-convict was caught red handed upon accepting the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 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 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-convict to which, the appellant-convict pleaded not guilty and he was put to trial.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined 13 witnesses besides proving the documents but no witness was examined on behalf of the appellant-convict.

6. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.7- Mithilesh Ku