The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 06.03.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.) Case No.05 of 2010 whereby and where under, the learned court below has held 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 two years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. The appellant-convict has further been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the complainant (P.W.1) submitted an application for settlement of land and fixation of land revenue of a land in the records of which, the name of his great grandfather was mentioned as a possessor of the land. The appellant who was the Karamchari of Kisko Circle in the district of Lohardaga demanded bribe of Rs. 8000/- in total that is Rs. 4000/- at the beginning of the work and another Rs. 4000/- at the end of the work. As the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Vigilance Bureau by submitting a written application addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Vigilance Bureau, which has been marked Ext.1 in this case. On the basis of the written application of the complainant, P.W.4 conducted verification and finding the allegation of the written application to be true, the P.W.4 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 16.02.2010 and the appellant-convict was caught red-handed after accepting the bribe. The post trap formalities were done. The P.W.10 being the I.O. of the case took charge of the investigation, obtained the sanction for prosecution and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charges for the said offences were framed against the appellant-convict and upon his denying the charges, he was put to trial.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined 12 witnesses besides proving documents which were marked Exhibits 1 to 20. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-convict.

5. P.W.1- Md. Junaid is the complainant of this case. He has proved the complaint submitted by him to the Vigilance Bureau. He has deposed that upon verification of his complaint on 15.02.2010, the same was found to be true. He then stated about the pre-trap formalities done in connection with this case. The trap-team went for Kisko block on 16.02.2010. After reaching Lohardaga, it was found that the appellant was in his rented accommodation at Shantinagar. They went to Shantinagar. The P.W.1 and P.W.4 first went to the house of the appellant. On their arrival the appellant demanded Rs. 4000/-. The P.W.1 handed over the notes smeared with Phenolphthalein powder.

After the money was given P.W.4 caught hold of the appellant-convict and recovered. 2 witnesses were called. Search of the appellant was made in presence of the witnesses. Upon search money was recovered from the right hand of the appellant. The numbers of the notes were tallied. Upon the hands of the appellant being washed in the solution the colour of solution tur