Advocates:
['T R BAJAJ', '', 'CHAITALI C SINHA', 'H K SHIKARWAR', 'RANDHIR SINGH', 'YOGESH MODI', 'ONKAR NATH TEWARY', 'RAJESH KUMAR', '', 'LAXMI MURMU']

Cr.App(SJ) No.1315 of 2003

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1315 of 2003

------

(Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated

29.08.2003 passed by learned Special Judge C.B.I.-Cum-4th Additional

Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.2A/88 D)

------

Jyotirmoy Ganguly son of late C.H. Ganguly resident of Bhowra Durga

Mandir, Police station- Jorapokhar, district- Dhanbad.

....

....

….

Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

....

....

.... Respondent

------

For the Appellant

: Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, Advocate

Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate

Ms. Shally Pandey, Advocate

For the C.B.I.

: Mr. Prashant Pallav, A.S.G.I.

Mr. Navneet Sahay, (AC to A.S.G.I.)

Mr. Bajrang Kumar, (AC to A.S.G.I.)

Mr. Pradyumna Poddar, (AC to A.S.G.I.)

For the State

: Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl.P.P.

------

PRESENT

--------------

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

By the Court:-

Heard the parties.

2.

The appellant-convict has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by

the Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence dated 29.08.2003 passed

by learned Special Judge C.B.I.-Cum-4th Additional Sessions Judge,

Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.2A/88 D whereby and where under the learned

court below has held the appellant-convict guilty of having committed the

offences punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of

Rs.500/- under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo

rigorous imprisonment of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the

offence punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1947 and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple

Cr.App(SJ) No.1315 of 2003

2

imprisonment of two months each and 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 Accounts Assistant in the Bhowra area of B.C.C.L.,

he demanded bribe of Rs.50/- from the complainant (P.W.3) for payment

of the bill amount of Rs.3,000/- of the complainant (P.W.3). An officer of

C.B.I. namely Kamla Prasad verified the allegations made in the complaint

and submitted his report confirming the demand of illegal gratification by

the appellant-convict as alleged in the written complaint by the

complainant. On the basis of the report submitted by the verifying officer,

this case has been registered. The investigation of the case was entrusted

to the P.W.8- Ajay Kant Sahay. A trap was successfully conducted. On

10.02.1988, the appellant-convict was caught red-handed after he accepted

the bribe amount of Rs.50/- which was wrapped in a paper and kept by

him in the drawer of his table in his office.

4.

After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been

submitted against the appellant-convict for having committed the offences

punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2)

read with 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Charge for

the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and

Section 5 (2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

were framed against the appellant-convict to which he pleaded not guilty

and thus was put to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether

examined eight witnesses besides proving the documents which have

been marked exhibits. However no witness was examined on behalf of the

defence.

5.

Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.3- Nand

Kishore Singh is the complainant himself. He has stated about the

complaint made by him