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 21.12.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV-cum-Spl. Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.02 (A) of 05(D) whereby and whereunder, learned court below has held appellant-accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 and under Sections 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant-accused has been sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Simple 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 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for both offences. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant Murli Kumhar consequent upon his retirement from Patherdih coal washery as TRM worker went to the office of Regional Commissioner of Coal Mines Provident Fund, for expediting release of his pension, Provident fund amount and arrear amount. The appellant-convict was the upper division clerk concerned and when the complainant approached the appellant- convict and enquired about the status of his documents, the appellant-convict informed the complainant that his documents have been received but the processing of the same will not be 2000/- done unless the complainant pays him a bribe of ₹ . As the complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, he approached the CBI, with the complaint. The complaint of the complainant was verified by the constable of CBI namely Mr. I.D. Mishra. Upon finding the complaint to be true the FIR of this case was registered. A trap was laid. The appellant-convict was 2000/- caught red-handed while accepting the bribe amount of ₹ . His hands were washed with sodium carbonate solution. The colour of the solution turned pink. After completion of the investigation of the case charge sheet was submitted against the appellant-convict for having committed offences punishable under section 7 as well as 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Charges for the said offences were framed against the appellant-convict by the learned trial court and the charges were read over and explained to the appellant-convict.

4. The appellant-convict pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution altogether examined 10 witnesses. The appellant-convict did not examine any witness in his defence.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that in this case the complainant has not been examined as a witness, as the summon issued to him to be examined as a witness returned with the endorsement that he has died. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.3 Gandhi Chandra Mandal is a trap witness. He stated that on 6th of January 2005 he reached the office of C.B.I under the orders of the G.M. of B.S.N.L. He met the complainant. The complaint was read over to him. He has described in details about the pre-trap preparations. They went to the office of C.M.P.F. at 1:15 PM. They got down from their vehicle at a distance from the office. The complainant was continuously being told that he must give the bribe amount to the appellant- convict only if he demands the money. P.W 3 was instructed to signal after the appellant-convict received the money, by putting his hand over his head. They went to the table of the appellant- convict. The appellant-convict was not present there. After some time, they saw that the appellant-convict was coming from a different office. The appellant-convict came near the garden, stood there and said if you have brought money then give it. The appell