Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Subrata Kumar Hazra @ Subrata Hajra vs The State Of West Bengal on 30 September, 2019
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
PRESENT:
The Hon'ble Justice Mr. Rajarshi Bharadwaj
C.R.A. 137 of 2014
Subrata Kumar Hazra @ Subrata Hajra
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal
For the Appellant : Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya
Mr. Usof Ali Dewan
Mr. Kaustav Bagchi
Mr. Arup Sarkar
Mr. Asif Dewan
For the State: Mr. Abhra Mukherjee
Mr. Dipankar Mahata
Heard On : 20th September, 2019.
Judgement On : 30th September, 2019.
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.:
The instant appeal is against the judgement of the learned Court of Special Judge, 1st Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur dated 20th day of January, 2014, in T.R. Case No. 03 of 2003 convicting and sentencing the appellant for one month and to pay Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
The prosecution case in brief as follows: -
On 30th November, 2000, the Sub-divisional officer posted at Islampur, the complainant in this case, went for a surprise visit around 1 AM at commercial check post, Purnia More, Dalkhola. At commercial check post, he caught the accused, a patrol man under the commercial tax commissionarate when the accused was collecting bribes of Rs. 10/- per vehicle to sign the papers and the appellant failed to give neither any valid receipt nor any proper explanation for such act. The complainant seized Rs. 767/- from his drawer and thereafter, lodged an F.I.R. and a written complaint on 3rd December, 2000 and the matter was also reported to the District Magistrate of Uttar Dinajpur by him. On the basis of the written complaint, the appellant was charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya submits that no truck driver had mentioned or informed about such collection of bribery before and they had not even been examined as prosecution witnesses during the trial of this case. Mr. Bhattacharyya further submits that there were four (4) employees on duty at that time but the prosecution could not prove from whose drawer the amount of Rs. 767/- was sized and no G.D.E No. or P.S. case No. was mentioned in the seizure list. Learned Advocate claimed that there was no evidence which could prove that there was any demand and voluntary acceptance of the alleged bribe that could attract the offence under Section 7 of the said Act. According to the learned senior counsel, the complainant had no authority to prepare seizure list by himself when the Sub-Divisional Police Officer was present at the place of occurrence and as the seizure list is void there cannot be any conviction under Section 7 of the said Act. Learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed by setting aside the judgement passed by the learned Court of Special Judge, 1st Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in T.R. Case No. 03 of 2003.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the evidence of the complainant is clear, cogent and consistent and is supported by seizure list and, accordingly, the conviction and sentence is liable to be upheld.
There are seven (7) prosecution witnesses in this case.
P.W.-1, the complainant of the instant case, the then Sub-Divisional Officer of Islampur deposed that on 30th November, 2000 at 1:00 AM, he went to Dalkhola for surprise visit. At Purnia More crossing area, he saw that the accused was collecting Rs. 10/- per vehicle for signing their papers without giving any receipt of such collection. P.W.-1 then disclosed his identity and seized Rs. 767/- from the drawer of the table. There was maximum denomination of Rs. 10/- and also 2-3 pieces of notes of Rs. 20/- in the seized amount. A seizure list was also prepared under his supervision by his staff and the same was marked as Ext.1. Then he lodged an F.I.R and written complaint on 1st December, 2000 and also informed the Learned District Magistrate through FAX. But the then Sub- Divisional Police Officer did not record his statement after receiving such F.I.R.
P.W.-2, Kajal Sarkar, stated that he was the then ASI of Police and on 30th November, 2000, he was posted at Dalkhola Police camp no. 479. On the night of occurrence, other constables namely, Susil Orau and Gobinda Mali were on the traffic duty. At that time the vehicle of the complainant arrived and as there was traffic jam, the complainant came out of his vehicle and caught Subrata Hajra, the accused, when he was collecting Rs. 10/- from the driver of each vehicle. It is a fact that the S.D.O seized Rs. 767/- from the possession of the accused. The S.D.P.O was present at that time and place of occurrence. P.W.-2 signed on the seizure list prepared by the complainant.
P.W.-3, Sushil Orao, the then constable of Dalkhola Police Camp, in his evidence deposed that he and Kajal Sarkar were asked to sign on a paper and were also informed that Rs. 767/- was seized by the S.D.P.O. He signed on the paper.
P.W.-4, Ajoy Bhattacharjee stated that he was posted as Sub- Inspector of Police at Karandighi Police Station at the relevant time. S.D.P.O of Islampur seized Rs.767/- from the complainant. He also stated that the seizure list did not bear the signature of the complainant and he signed on the seizure list at the order of his superior officer.
P.W.-5, S. Lepcha in her evidence deposed that she was posted as D.S.P, DEB, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj. She received the case diary of the instant case on 3rd December, 2000 from Sri Prasanta Chatterjee, the then D.S.P, DEB, Uttar Dinajpur for investigating the case. She tried to examine the available witnesses but failed to do so due to their non-availability. P.W-5 recorded the statement of the complainant and consulted with Learned Public Prosecutor to obtain sanction from the District Magistrate. Afterwards, she was transferred and handed over that file to Prasanta Chatterjee.
P.W.-6, Prasanta Kumar Bhattacharjee, DSP Headquarters, Uttar Dinajpur deposed that he received the sanction order from the then District Magistrate, bearing District Magistrate's signature. He investigated the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
P.W.-7, K. Jayaraman, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer of Islampur deposed that on 3rd December, 2000, he received a written complaint from S.D.O, Islampur. On that very day, he started investigating the instant case being P.S. Case No. 274 of 2000 dated 3rd December, 2000 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused. He seized the articles and seizure list was prepared by the complainant. He also deposed that the seized articles were not present on the day of his cross-examination.
From the evidence, it appears that none of the truck drivers stated before the complainant or the Investigating Officer or deposed before the Court that the appellant demanded illegal gratification from the drivers of the vehicles. The amount seized by the complainant from the drawer of the office of the appellant but at that relevant time four (4) employees of commercial tax commissionerate were on duty. The seizure list (Exhibit-1) prepared by the complainant and perused during hearing by this court does not reflect any G.D.E. No. or P.S. Case No. I have analysed the evidence on record and there is no evidence to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of alleged bribe so as to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am constrained to hold that the case is being proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been unable to prove the charge against the appellant under-Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt and conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside.
Copy of the judgement along with the lower court records be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.)