SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 6477

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
S. Banerjee, J
Soumen Kumar Pal – Appellant
Versus
CBI – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. CRA SB 186 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee
For the Respondents: Mr. Amajit De

The court upheld the conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act based on sufficient circumstantial evidence, affirming that the absence of direct evidence does not negate the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(2) - Allegation of demand for bribe - Accused caught red handed accepting bribe after verification of complaint and trap - The Conviction upheld as sufficient evidence is available including testimonies from various witnesses and forensic evidence - The claim of the appellant regarding improper admission of evidence and absence of direct evidence of bribe demand rejected. (Paras 1-45)

(B) Evidential standards - The original SD Card as primary evidence means that requirements under S.65B of the Evidence Act are not applied. (Paras 36-42)

(C) Due process - Prosecution followed the required procedure according to CBI manual; discrepancies in witness testimony do not exonerate the accused. (Paras 33-38)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of demanding bribes from a complainant under threat of job transfer. Following investigation and a trap, he was caught receiving the bribe.

Findings of Court:
Evidence sufficiently established the demands made by the accused, and the court found him guilty based on the overall evaluation of testimonies and circumstantial evidence showcasing the crime.

Issues: The primary legal challenge was regarding the admissibility of evidence and the correctness of the prosecution process leading to conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where there is compelling circumstantial evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribes, the absence of direct eyewitness accounts may not negate the prosecution's case, especially when no substantive renunciation against outcomes was proven by the defense.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. allegations of bribery leading to trap and evidence of acceptance. (Para 1 , 19)
2. defense arguments regarding admissibility of evidence and contradictions. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 , 34)
3. presumption of illegal gratification established. (Para 39 , 40)
4. court maintains conviction upon reviewing electronic evidence. (Para 42 , 44)

1. On 12.07.2017 one telephonic complaint was received from Shri Om Prakash Mahato(complainant), Tub Repairing Majdoor, Parbelia Colliery of Eastern Cold Fields Limited (for short ECL), Purulia whereby it was alleged that Soumen Kumar Pal, Colliery Manger, Parbelia ECL, had demanded bribe @ Rs. 1000/- per month for the complainant by threatening that if he did not pay the said bribe, he would be transferred from his assigned job of mechanical fitter to more difficult job like underground mining. That allegation was verified and investigation was conducted along with a 'trap' on 14.07.2017 to apprehend the accused red handed at the time of demanding and accepting bribe. Accordingly, trap team was constituted and accused was caught red handed with bribe from his possession. After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant / accused Soumen Kumar Pal on 22.12.2017 before the Ld. Judge, Special (CBI) Court, Asansole, Paschim Bardhaman under S.7 and S.13(2) read with S.13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short Act, 1988). Cognizance was taken.

2. Ld. Judge, framed formal charge under aforementioned Sections and after being read over an explained appellant / accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove the charge prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses namely Gopal Singh, Chairman cum Managing Director of ECL as PW1, Wasim Akram Khan, Sub Inspector, CBI, ACB, Kolkata as PW2, Baijyanta Mukhopadhyay, Deputy Director and Scientist 'D' (explosives) at CFSL, Kolkata as PW3, Gopal Sharan, Chief Welfare Inspector, D.R.M Office, Asansol as PW4, Om Prakash Mahato (complainant), Tub Repair Majdoor as PW5, Devanand Kumar, Vigilance Inspector, SAIL, ISP, Burnpur, as PW6, Rabindra Sharma, then Manager of Parbelia Colliery as PW7, Amar Jyoti Prasad, a witness to voice audio clips as PW8, Ashoke Kumar Poddar, a witness to voice audio clips as PW9, Diptarka Moitra, Colliery Engineer of Parbelia Colliery as PW10, Babu Lal Pandey, Assistant Manager (personnel)of Parbelia Colliery as PW11, Arbind Kumar Singh, agent of Parbelia Group of Mines at Sodpur area as PW12, Amitabha Ghosh, the then Inspector CBI, ACB, Kolkata as PW13, Amitabha Das, the then Inspector CBI, ACB, Kolkata as PW14, Doctor Subhrat Kumar Choudhury, Senior Scientific Officer (HOD) Computer Forensic Division, CFSL, New Delhi as PW 15 and one Mukesh Kumar, Inspector CBI, ACB, Shillong, attached to ACB, Kolkata as PW16.

4. In course of evidence a good number of documents namely FIR, Sketch map, pre - trap memo, post trap memo, and signatures therein, seizure list with signature, transfer order, posting order, release order, regularization order, transcription of audio clip, search memo etc. were admitted in evidence as 1 to 25. That apart, some materials like bottles, trap money, envelope containing, memory card, signature on the envelope etc. were admitted in evidence as MAT exhibit I to MAT VII series.

5. After examination and cross - examination of witnesses appellant / accused was examined under S.313 of the code of Criminal Procedure and he attributed his false implication in this case.

6. Ld. Trial Judge, heard rival submission of the parties and after evaluation of evidence passed the judgement and order of conviction on 20.12.2022 and sentenced the appellant / accused to suffer simple imprisonment of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, further imprisonment of three months for commission of offence under S.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also to suffer simple imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in def



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top