JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-convicts being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated th September, 2003 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi in Special Case No.7 of 1991 whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellant-convicts guilty for having committed the offence under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the PW1 was the contractor in P.H.D. department, Chakradharpur and the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, who was a police officer, demanded bribe from the complainant. The complainant-PW1 paid Rs. 10,000/- as bribe to the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai but again the said the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai demanded Rs. 5,000/-more from the complainant. The complainant was not willing to pay further bribe and he gave written information to the Additional I.G., Vigilance. The matter was verified by PW7-Bhagwan Singh, the Inspector of Police. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai demanded Rs. 5,000/-in presence of PW7 on 19.02.1991. The FIR was registered. A trap was laid on 26.02.1991. The complainant met the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, while he was coming out from the police station. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai took the complainant to a hut and took tea and enquired from complainant there, as to whether he has brought the money. The complaint took out money from his pocket but the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai asked the complainant to give the money to appellant-convict no. 1 who at that time was sitting in his shop. Thereafter, the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and PW1 went to the shop of appellant-convict no. 1 and on the direction of the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, the PW1 gave Rs. 5,000/-to the appellant-convict no. 1. Thereafter, the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, appellant-convict no.1 and PW1 came to a hotel and took tea there. The appellant-convict no. 1 went back to his shop. The PW1 waited in the hotel for some time. The co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai left for the market. The complainant informed the PW7 about the acceptance of money by the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and also informed that the money has been given to the appellant-convict no. 1. The appellant-convict no. 1 took the currency notes from PW1 and when he felt that there was some chemical in the currency notes, he handed the notes to the appellant-convict no. 2, who is the son of the appellant-convict no. 1. The appellant-convict no. 2 washed the notes with petrol. On information, the members of the trap team went and found the GC notes in the rack of Ishwar Bhai Patel and the money smeared with phenopthelene of Rs. 5,000/-was recovered from there.

4. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted chargesheet against the appellant-convicts as well as the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai and separate charge for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the appellants-convicts while the charge for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai.

5. The appellants-convicts as well as the co-convict, J.K. Rai @ Jaikishore Rai, pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Hence they were put to trial.

6. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined fourteen witnesses. But the defence did not choose to examine any witness. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1-Sudhir Kumar Nand who is the complainant himself, has deposed about the complaint submitted by him and the verification made by PW7 along with the him on 19.02.1991 of the said complaint, in which the co-convict, J.K. R