JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 20.10.2020 and Order of Sentence dated 31.10.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B., Hazaribag in Special Case No.45 of 2014 (CNR No. JHHB 01- 0039362014) whereby and where under, the learned court below has held appellant-convict guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant-P.W.6- Shankarlal Yadav being a driver of a truck while going in the highway with his truck loaded with pulses, from Madhya Pradesh to Kolkata, on the way at Atka the co-accused District Transport Officer, Hazaribag stopped his truck and took away all the documents of the truck as well as the driving licence of the complainant and told the complainant to meet him in his office. The complainant parked his truck in a line Hotel and went to the office of the co-accused District Transport Officer. The co-accused District Transport Officer gave one mobile phone number to the complainant and told the complainant that the said mobile phone number is of the present appellant-convict and also told the complainant to meet the appellant-convict where the appellant- convict calls the complainant for release of his truck. The complainant then contacted the appellant-convict and the appellant-convict told the complainant to come to the District More. When the complainant went to District More and met the appellant-convict, the appellant-convict told the complainant that the co-accused District Transport Officer has said that for the release of his vehicle the complainant has to pay Rs. 22,000/-. On being asked by the complainant the appellant-convict informed the complainant that no receipt will be given to the complainant in respect of the payment of Rs. 22,000 /-which will be made by the complainant and in spite of the request of the complainant the appellant-convict did not return the documents of the vehicle and the driving licence of the complainant. As the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Vigilance Bureau by submitting a written application. On the basis of the written application of the complainant, P.W.2 conducted verification and finding the allegation of the written application to be true, the P.W.2 submitted his report. On the basis of the same, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered and a trap team was constituted. A successful trap was made on 11.11.2014, at the office of the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh and the appellant-convict was caught red-handed after accepting the bribe of Rs. 19,000/-on behalf of the co-accused District Transport Officer. The post trap formalities were done. The P.W.7 being the I.O. of the case took charge of the investigation and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet. Charge for the offence punishable under section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the appellant-convict and upon his denying the charge, he was put to trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined ten witnesses besides proving documents. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-convict.

5. P.W.6- Shankarlal Yadav is the complainant of this case. He has been declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution as he did not support the case of the prosecution. Before being declared hostile, the P.W.6 has stated that he has not submitted any application against anybody in the Vigilance Bureau, Hazaribagh. He did not deposit the bribe amount in the office of