The evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money, when unchallenged, is sufficient to establish the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

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 09.05.2002, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 22 (A)/93-(R) whereby and where under, the learned court below has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and has sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in case of default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. Further, the appellant-convict has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in case of default of payment of fine, further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that while the appellant-convict was posted as Superintendent (Civil), Bhawnathpur Lime Stone Mines, Raw Material Division (SAIL), on 03.11.1993 demanded a bribe of Rs.3,000/- for making the payment of the final bill amount which bribe amount was later on scaled down to Rs.1,000/- and instructed the complainant who was the contractor engaged in construction of the Explosive Building in the said Bhawnathpur Mines of SAIL to give the said bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- on 05. 11.1993 to the appellant-convict. As the complainant was not desirous of giving the said bribe, he submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., S.P.E., Ranchi on 05.11.1993. The complaint was verified by Sri Shravan Kumar, Deputy Superintendent, C.B.I., S.P.E., Ranchi and on finding the allegation to be genuine, F.I.R. vide R.C. Case No. 22 (A)/93-(R) was registered on 05.11.1993. A trap team was constituted including the complainant, independent witnesses and the officers of the C.B.I. On the same day, a trap was laid at Bhawnathpur. The complainant knocked the door of the drawing room of the residence of the appellant-convict. The appellant-convict opened the door and allowed the complainant to go inside the drawing room. Inside the drawing room, the appellant-convict demanded the bribe upon which, the complainant handed over the currency notes amounting to Rs.1,000/- smeared with phenolphthalein powder to the appellant-convict. The conversation between the appellant-convict and the complainant was overheard by the shadow witness. Upon receiving the bribe amount, the appellant-convict counted the same using both his hands and kept the same in his left side pocket of his Kurta. Upon receiving the pre-fixed signal, the members of the trap party rushed to the drawing room of the appellant-convict and after disclosing their identity challenged the appellant-convict of having demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- as bribe from the complainant. The fingers of both the hands as well as the pocket of the Kurta of the appellant convict in which the bribe amount was kept were washed separately by dipping the same in the sodium carbonate solution upon which the colour of the milky white solution of sodium carbonate turned pink. The currency notes were seized. Post-trap formalities were completed. The sanction for prosecution of the appellant-convict was obtained.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellant-convict. Se