Jharkhand High Court
Gopal Sharan Singh vs State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 3 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: [2005(2)JCR388A(JHR)]
Author: Vishnudeo Narayan
Bench: Vishnudeo Narayan
JUDGMENT Vishnudeo Narayan, J.
1. This appeal at the instance of the appellant stands directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.1998 passed by Sri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, the Special Judge, CBI and Vigilance, Ranchi in R.C. 15 (A)/93(R) whereby and whereunder he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for one year under Section 7 and RI for 2 years under Section 13(2) of the said Act respectively. The appellant was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 500/- for the offences aforesaid respectively and in default thereof to undergo SI for one month and three, months respectively. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the FIR lodged before the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Ranchi Branch by PW 7 Sravan Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, SP, Ranchi on 16.7.1993 at 10.30 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 9.7.1993 at 12.30 hours on the basis of the written petition of PW 2 Anant Munda, lodged before the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW 2 Anant Munda the brother of Mohra Munda, deceased, lodged a complaint in writing to the S.P., C.B.I., SPE, Ranchi stating therein that the appellant, an upper division clerk in the office of the Regional Commissioner of Coal Mines ' Provident Fund, Ranchi has demanded from him Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification on 9.3.1997 for processing and causing the issuance of cheque in respect of Coal Mines Provident Fund claim on the death of Mohra Munda in favour of his widow PW 3 Jamuni Devi. It is alleged that said Mohra Munda has died in course of his service, working as Trammer Helper in Dakra Colliery and he does not want to pay an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/- as demanded by the appellant from him and requested for taking action against the appellant in the said matter. The matter was verified by PW 6, D.B. Singh Inspector, C.B.I, in respect thereof and it was learnt that the appellant bears bad reputation as a corrupt public servant. The appellant was enjoined upon the duty of settling the CMPF claim in respect of employees of Dakra Colliery of CCL and CMPF claim, filed by Jamuni Devi aforesaid duly forwarded by the colliery authorities of Dakra colliery, was received in Region 1 office of CMPF, Ranchi and on its receipt, the CMPF claim papers were handed over to the appellant for processing and settling the said claim and the appellant has enlisted the said claim as Claim No. 151/1993-94 on 10.1.1993 and relevant papers relating to the said claim filed by Jamuni Devi were linked by the concerned assistant, who submitted the, said to the appellant on 18.6.1993 but the appellant did not take any action for settling the claim. The prosecution case further is that after registration of the case, a trap party was constituted and the presence of two independent witnesses were secured with a view to catching the appellant red- handed while demanding and accepting the illegal gratification from Anant Munda aforesaid. The members of the CBI, trap party headed by PW 7 and the two independent witnesses i.e. PW 5 P.K. Sahay, Assistant Chief Vigilance Officer and PW 4 Vijay Swaroop, Section Personal Officer both of CCL, Ranchi and PW 2 Anant Munda assembled in the office of the informant on 16.7.1993 and PW 2 Anant Munda produced the Govt. Currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination bearing Nos. ICA-595476, 7TP-578663 and 9UH- 513510 which he had brought to pay to the appellant as bribe in pursuance of his demand and during the pre-trap formalities, the said Govt. Currency notes were treated with phenolphathalien powder and handed over to Anant Munda aforesaid with direction to pay the same to the appellant only on demand and pre-trap memorandum was also prepared and the members of the trap party alongwith the witnesses and Ananat Munda aforesaid came near the office of the Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Ranchi at 12.35 hours on 16.7.1993. It is alleged that on enquiry, it transpired that the appellant was not available in the office right then but members of the trap party alongwith the independent witnesses and Anand Munda aforesaid waited on the road in front of the said office for arrival of the appellant. The prosecution case further is that the appellant was seen coming on the road from the side of the S.P. office at 14.30 hours on that day and he was contacted by Anant Munda aforesaid on the road itself and the appellant took him to a nearby tea shop on the road near the office of the CMPF Ranch and PW 7 Sravan Kumar alongwith PW 5, P.K. Sahay also came inside the said tea shop simultaneously. The appellant sat on the bench in the said tea shop and asked Anant Munda as to whether he had brought the money and he replied in the affirmative that he has managed Rs. 300/- with great difficulty for him and, thereafter, the appellant asked him to hand over the said amount immediately and on this demand Anant Munda took out the aforesaid three Govt. Currency notes and handed over the same to the appellant who accepted the same with his right hand and kept the same in the upper chest pocket of his bushirt and, thereafter, he directed Anant Munda to go from there taking tea hurriedly stating that he has passed his claim and he will get the cheque regarding the claim within 8 days. The prosecution case, further, is that they overheard the conversation and also saw the transaction aforesaid and other members of the trap party including PW 4 also saw the said transaction and the acceptance of the bribe amount. PW 7 disclosed his identity and challenged the appellant for having demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 300/-as bribe from Anant Munda and the appellant was apprehended and, thereafter, the right hand fingers of the appellant were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate as a consequence of which the milky colour of the said solution turned pink, which was preserved in a clean glass bottle and it was sealed and signed by them and the appellant also produced the aforesaid Govt. currency notes from his upper chest pocket of his bushirt and handed over the same to the witnesses aforesaid and the number of the said Govt. currency notes were verified from pre-trap memorandum in presence of all and they tally in toto with them and, thereafter, the pocket of the bushirt of the appellant was also washed in another solution of sodium carbonate and it also turned pink which was preserved with another bottle and it was sealed and signed by them and the bushirt of the appellant was also seized and placed in an envelop under seal and signature of all. The prosecution case, further, is that the appellant begged apology from them stating that he has committed a misconduct and he ought not to have taken bribe and he should be exonerated and the appellant was arrested. A detailed memorandum regarding the post trap proceedings was prepared in the office of the informant, which was witnesses by the members of the trap party alongwith independent witnesses and a copy of the said memorandum was also handed over to the appellant.
4. The appellant has pleaded not guilty and he claims himself to be innocent and to have committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also contended that the claim in question was settled by him on 10.7.1993 and he has sent the file to the Regional Commissioner. S.D. Lall for his approval on 12.7.1993 and thus the question of demanding and accepting the bribe on 16.7.1993 does not arise at all.
5. The prosecution has in all examined nine witnesses to substantiate its case. PW 3 Jamuni Devi is the widow of Mohra Munda deceased. PW 2 Anant Munda is the brother of Mohra Munda deceased aforesaid and Ext. 2 is the complaint petition per his pen, lodged before SP, CBI, Ranchi. PW 6 D.B. Singh is the Inspector, CBI who has verified the allegation made to the SP, CBI by PW 2 aforesaid against the appellant and the verification report in respect thereof is Ext. 4 in this case. PW 7 Sravan Kumar is the SP, CBI, SPE, Ranchi and he is the head of the trap party consisting of PW 2, PW 6, PW 4 and PW 5. PW 4 Vijay Swaroop and PW 5, P.K. Sahay are the independent witnesses of the said search, recovery and seizure of the tainted money from the appellant. PW 8 Surendra Kumar Sinha and PW 9 Shiv Din Lall are the Section Officer and Provident Fund Commissioner of CMPF, Ranchi respectively. PW 1 Ashok Chandra Bauri, the stenographer in office of the CMPF, aforesaid is a formal witness who has proved the sanction order (Ext. 1) of the competent authority for the prosecution of the appellant. Ext. 6 is the pre-trap memorandum and Ext. 7 is the memorandum of recovery of the tainted Government currency notes recovered from the possession of the appellant. Ext. 3 series are the signatures of the witnesses aforesaid on the said pre-trap memorandum as well as the memorandum of recovery and seizure besides other relevant envelopes. Ext. 8 is a letter about the three glass containers sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta for examination of its contents and Ext. 11 is the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory in respect thereof. Ext. 12 is the relevant file regarding the settlement of claim of deceased Mohra Munda. Ext. 13 is the order sheet regarding the settlement of claim of Mohra Munda, deceased and Exts. 12/1, 12/2, 12/3 and 13/1 are the relevant orders in respect thereof. Ext. 3/65 is the signature on the seizure memo regarding the seizure of relevant documents from the office of Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Ranchi in respect of the claim of deceased Mohra Munda. The material Ext. 1 to XI are the envelopes of three bottles, bushirt. Government currency notes etc. of this case. No oral evidence has been brought on the record on behalf of the appellant but the statement of Sri S.D. Lall, Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Ranchi recorded by the PW 7 the I.O. in course of investigation has been, brought on the record on his behalf and the said statement is Ext. A in this case.
6. In view of the oral and documentary evidence on the record, coupled with the recovery of the tainted Government currency notes from the conscious possession of the appellant in presence of PW 4, and PW 5, the independent witnesses of the search and recovery the learned Court below found the appellant guilty and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above.
7. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment in the facts and circumstances of this case is not sustainable either in law or in fact. It has been submitted that the provident fund claim of deceased Mohra Munda was settled by him on 10.7.1993 and the relevant file was sent to the Regional Commissioner for his approval on 12.7.1993 after being checked by the Section Incharge and the claim was passed by the Regional Commissioner on 13.7.1993 for payment in favour of Janumi Devi widow of the Mohra Munda and in this view of the fact, the question of accepting bribe by the appellant on 16.7.1993 does not arise at all and the learned Court below did no consider this aspect of the matter and has erred in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellant. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the case of Gulam Mahmood A. Malik v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1980 SC 1558. It has also been contended that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation against the appellant and all the witnesses are official witnesses being partisan witnesses and highly interested in the prosecution case and the trap in question was also not conducted in he manner as prescribed under the law. It has also been submitted that the sanction of the prosecution of the appellant is also not in accordance with law in this case and in support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the case of Shivendra Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (3) East Cr C 1100 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 3079. It has further been submitted that there are inconsistent statements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in this view of the matter, their testimony is not reliable and worthy of credence and the conviction of the appellant suffers with infirmity and illegality and in support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the case of Suraj Mal v. The State (Delhi), AIR 1979 SC 1408. Lastly, it has been contended that the sentence awarded to the appellant is very severe and he has also suffered with other consequential punishment of loss of his job though he had unblemish service and in this view of the matter it is a fit case for modification of the sentence and he may be released on due admonition. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the case of Biranchi Narayan Mohanty v. State of Orissa, 2001 Cri LJ 72 (SC) : 2001 (1) East Cr C 182 (SC).
8. In contra, it has been submitted by the Special PP, CBI that there is legal evidence on the record regarding the demand of illegal ratification by the appellant from PW 2, Anant Munda and three Government currency notes each in denomination of Rs. 100/- amounting to Rs. 300/- were delivered to the appellant by PW 2 which were accepted by the appellant and as a result of the trap the said tainted currency notes have been recovered from his conscious possession from the upper chest pocket of his bushirt before the prosecution witnesses including the two independent witnesses of search and recovery and all the prosecution witnesses in their evidence on oath have materially substantiated the prosecution case beyond all shadow of doubts and their evidence is reliable and creditworthy. It has further been submitted that once it is established by legal evidence on the record that illegal gratification was demanded and accepted by a public servant presumption arises that it was paid and accepted as a motive or reward to do or to forbear from doing any official act and the mere fact that the currency notes have reached the hands of the appellant is a sufficient corroboration of the trap witnesses and it is for the appellant to prove that the government currency notes which have been recovered from his conscious possession was not accepted by him as a reward or motive for the official act done by him. In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the case of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2000) 8 SCC 571 Jagjeevan Prasad v. State of M.P., (2000) 8 SCC 22 and M.W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 3 SCC 567. It has further been contended that the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is reliable as they are the trap witnesses and in their presence on demand the government currency notes were handed over to the appellant and the same was also recovered on search of his person and non-examination of any independent witness in this case cannot be viewed as a lacuna of the prosecution case. In support of this contention reliance has been place upon the ratio of the ease of State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, 1998 (1) East Cr C 619 (SC) : (1998) 1 SCC 557. Lastly it has been contented that there is no infirmity at all in the sanction order (Ext. 1) regarding the prosecution of the appellant in respect of the offence in question and in cannot be said that there is any occasion of failure of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case and reliance has been placed upon the ratio of the cases of Ranjit Sahay v. State of Bihar, 1998 (1) East Cr C 952 (Pat) and Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI), 1998 (1) East Cr C 216 (SC) : (1997) 8 SCC 732.
9. It will admit of no doubt that Mohra Munda was an employee in Dakra Colliery of C.C.L. working as Trammer Helper and he has died in course of his service and his son was employed on compassionate ground on account of his death and PW 3. Jamuni Devi is his widow entitled to have the amount of his GPF deposited in his GPF Account No. R/1/632/124 standing in his name. The claim for refund of the said amount was forwarded to the Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Ranchi I by the authorities of Dakra Colliery for payment of his Coal Mines Provident Fund amount which was received in the office of the Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Ranchi on 30.12.1992 vide diary No. 3101 which was handed over to the appellant on 18.6.1993 by the concerned Assistant and when delay was occasioned due to the non-payment of the said amount PW 2, Anant Munda, the brother of Mohra Munda deceased came to the said office at the instance of PW 3 and he met the appellant on 9.7.1993 at 12.30 p.m. in his office where a demand of Rs. 300/- as an illegal gratification was made from him for getting the said amount sanctioned in favour of PW 3. Since PW 3 was not in favour of making the payment of the said illegal gratification as demanded by the appellant. PW 2 approached PW 7 Shrawan Kumar, Deputy SP, CBI where he lodged a written report in respect thereof and, thereafter, the authenticity of the allegation was verified by PW 6, D.B. Singh, Inspector, CBI and on receipt of the verification report (Ext. 4) this case was instituted and after procuring the presence of PWs 4 and 5 as independent witnesses of search, pre-trap memo was prepared on production of three currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each by PW 2 before PW 7 and the said currency notes were treated with Phenolphathalien power and PW 7, PW 6 along with PWs 4 and 5 besides PW 2 proceeded to the office of the appellant for trapping him regarding the occurrence in question PW 3, Jamuni Devi has deposed that her husband Mohra Munda has died in course of service in Dakra Colliery about seven years ago and she had filed an application before Dakra Colliery for withdrawal of his GPF amount and when there was inordinate delay in the payment of the said amount she had asked PW 2 Anant Munda, the brother of her deceased husband to do the needful in the matter and he informed her that a demand of Rs. 300/- has been made as an illegal gratification from him by the appellant for expending the said work. She has further deposed that she was not willing to make payment of the said illegal gratification. PW 2, Anant Munda corroborating the testimony of PW 3 has deposed that at the instant of PW 3 he had been to the office of the appellant in connection with the expeditious payment of the due amount of GPF payable to her on account of the death of her husband in service and he met the appellant in his office and he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 300/- for expediting the said work and he has reported the same to PW 3 and she was not willing at all to make payment of the illegal gratification as demanded but inspite of that he managed Rs. 300/- and came to the office of the CBI where he filed a written complaint. He has further deposed that, thereafter, he came to the chamber of PW 7 where other prosecution witnesses were present and he produced before them Rs. 300/- which was to be handed over to the appellant and in his presence three currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each were treated with powder in presence of the aforesaid witnesses and, thereafter, his hand was washed in a chemical solution and the colour of the said chemical solution turned pink and a pre-trap memorandum was prepared which was signed by all present there. He has further deposed that he along with PWs 7, 6, 4 and 5 proceeded for the office of CMPF, Ranchi and he went in the office of the appellant who was not found present there and he learnt that the appellant is expected to return at about 2.30 p.m. His evidence is further to the effect that he came out of the said office and he met the appellant near a bettle shop and he along with him went inside the tea shop which is by the side of the said bettle shop where he along with the appellant took tea and the other prosecution witnesses aforesaid were in the very close vicinity of the said tea shop. He has also deposed that on query by the appellant he told him that with great hardships he has managed Rs. 300/- which he has brought and on the demand by the appellant he handed over the said currency notes to him and the appellant received the said amount by his right hand and put the same in the chest pocket of his bushirt and directed him to go from there stating that he has got his work done and he will get the cheque within eight days and, thereafter, on his signal other witnesses came in the tea shop and they challenged the appellant and the tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant and the appellant himself took out the said tainted currency notes and handed over the same to the witnesses present there and, thereafter, the number of the said Government currency notes were compared with the pre-trap memo and they were found to be same and similar and the appellant begged apology for being exonerated. He has further deposed that the right hand of the appellant was washed in a chemical solution which was turned pink and the said solution was kept in a glass container and sealed which was witnessed by him and other witnesses and thereafter, the pocket of the bushirt of the appellant was also washed in another chemical solution and its colour was also turned pink and the said solution was also kept in a glass container and sealed and signed by the witnesses besides him. He has also deposed that the said bushirt of the appellant was also seized and kept in a proper packet and the said packet who also sealed and signed by the witness present there including him. His evidence is further to the effect that a large number of persons had collected at the said tea stall and he along with the prosecution witnesses brought the appellant to the C.B.I. office where post-trap memorandum was prepared which was also witnessed by him and the aforesaid witnesses. In para 18 of his cross-examination he has deposed that PW 4 and PW 5 have also entered in the tea shop when he had come inside the said tea shop with the appellant and after handing over the tainted currency notes and accepted by the appellant he was challenged by them and other witnesses immediately rushed inside the said tea stall and the said tainted currency notes were recovered from the possession of the appellant who himself took them out from his pocket and handed over to them.
PW 7, Shrawan Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI has deposed that on the written complaint of PW 2 and the allegations having been found prima facie correct on verification by PW 6 this case was instituted and, therefore, he requisitioned the services of PWs 4 and 5 as independent witnesses of the rap and prepared the pre-trap memorandum treating the government currency notes in question produced by PW 2 with Phenolphathalien powder and proceeded with the trap party to the office of the appellant and having not found the appellant present in his office he along with others waited for him outside his office. He has deposed further that at about 2.30 p.m. the appellant was seen coming and PW 2 met him and the appellant took him inside a tea stall and they sat on a wooden bench in the said tea stall. He has further deposed that he along with PW 5 also entered into the said tea shop simultaneously with them and he along with PW 4 took up their seat on the other bench near by inside the said shop. His evidence is further to the effect that appellant enquired from PW 2 as to whether he has brought the demanded amount and on getting the reply from him in the affirmative he asked him to hand over the said amount and on this demand PW 2 handed over the aforesaid Government currency notes to the appellant which he received in his right hand and kept the said government currency notes in the upper left chest pocket of his bushirt. He has further deposed that immediately, thereafter, he stood up from his seat and disclosing his identity challenged the appellant in presence of PW 4 and other members of the trap party who happened to come inside the said shop in the meanwhile and the appellant on being challenged became nervous and begged for apology and he took out the tainted currency notes from his upper chest pocket of his bushirt and handed them over to PW 4 and, thereafter, the fingers of his right hand and the pocket of the said bushirt were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate, the colour of which turned pink and the number of the said recovered tainted Government currency notes were also verified by the pre- trap memo which tallied and the appellant was arrested and brought to the CBI office where post trap memorandum was duly prepared and all the aforesaid incriminating articles were seized. PW 6, D.B. Singh has deposed to have made verification regarding the allegation against the appellant on the basis of the complaint of PW 2. He has also deposed that he was one of the members of the trap party and in his presence the exercise regarding preparation of pre-trap memorandum was conducted. He has also deposed to have gone with the trap party to the office of the appellant. In his evidence he has further materially corroborated the testimony of PW 6, PW 4 Vijay Swaroop. Deputy Personal Manager, CCL and PW 5, Prabhat Kumar Sahay, Deputy Chief Vigilance Officer, CCL have deposed that as per direction of their respective superior officer they reported to the CBI office at 10.30 hours on 16.7.1993 where they were introduced with the other members of the raiding party including PW 2 and they were made known for the purpose and in their presence PW 2 had produced the three Government currency notes each of the denomination of Rs. 100/- to PW 7 which was to be handed as bribe money to the appellant by him in course of the trap and the said currency notes were treated with Phenolphathalien powder and a paper was also treated with Sodium Carbonate which was handed over to PW 4. He has further deposed that his hand and the said paper was washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and the said solution turned pink and that solution was preserved in a glass container and sealed and signed by them and other members of the trap parties and pre-trap memo was prepared and, thereafter, he along with PW 5 and other members of the trap party came to the office of the appellant but the appellant was not found present on his seat in the said office and, thereafter, they along with other members of the trap party came out of the office and waited for the appellant.
PW 4 has further deposited that at about 14.30 hours the appellant was seen on the road in front of his office and PW 2 met him on the road and, thereafter, the appellant and PW 2 came inside the tea shop. He has further deposed that he along with other members of the raiding party came and stayed at a bettle shop adjacent the said tea shop and from there he has been PW 2 handing over the said currency notes to the appellant and keeping the said currency notes by the appellant in his upper chest pocket of his bushirt and, thereafter, the members of the trap party immediately came inside the said tea shop along with him and PW 5 and the appellant was challenged by them and the appellant begged apology and PW 7 caught the hand of the appellant which was washed in a solution of sodium carbonate the colour of which turned into pink and the said pink colour solution was kept in a glass container and sealed and signed by them. He has further deposed that the appellant produced the said currency notes taking them out from his pocket, the number of which tallied with the pre-trap memorandum and the said currency notes were also kept in an envelope. He has also deposed that the pocket of the bushirt aforesaid was also washed in the solution of sodium carbonate and its colour also turned pink and the said bushirt was also seized and kept in a packet sealed and signed by them and the said solution of the sodium carbonate was also preserved in the glass container under seal and signature of all present there. His evidence is further to the affect that a large number of persons had collected at the place of occurrence and the trap party came to the CBI office with the appellant where the seizure memo i.e. post trap memorandum was prepared which was sealed and signed by him and PW 5 besides the members of the trap party. PW 5, the other independent witnesses has materially corroborated the testimony as deposited by PW 4. It is equally relevant to mention here that the three glass bottles in which the solution of sodium carbonate was kept under seal as well as signature of the prosecution witnesses aforesaid were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata and Ext. 11 is the report in respect thereof of the said Forensic Science Laboratory and it reveals that "both sodium carbonate and sodium phenolphthalein the latter being formed by the action of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate solution were detected in the contents of each of the Exts. marked here as 1201-A to 1201-C respectively." It is relevant to mention here that there is definitely some contradiction in the testimony of PW 7 on the one hand and PWs 2, 4 and 5 on the other hand regarding the fact of coming inside the tea shop with PWs 6 and 4 simultaneously with PW 2 and the appellant and also the fact that PWs 7 and 4 had sat on the near by bench in the said tea shop by the side of the bench on which PW 2 and the appellant had sat and such emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect thereof as a ground of attack to cast aspersion regarding the authenticity of the trap in question but it appears to me in the facts and circumstances of this case that the said inconsistency is not of such a magnitude to cast a cloud of suspicion to the credibility of the trap in view of the overwhelming evidence on the record in respect thereof. Therefore, there appears no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in respect thereof.
10. PW 8 Surendra Kumar Sinha is the. Section Incharge in the CMPF office Ranchi and the appellant was posted in his section during the relevant period and he was the incharge in respect of the settlement of Provident Fund claim of the deceased Mohra Munda. He has deposed that whenever any application for settlement of claim is received in his office it is entered in the central diary and, thereafter, it sent to the Dealing Assistant where claim case number is put on that application. In para 4 of his evidence he has deposed that the claim of deceased Mohra Munda was settled by the appellant on 10.7.1993 and the said settlement of claim was approved by him on 12.7.1993 and final order was passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner on 13.7.1993. PW 9, Sheodeen Lal, the then Commissioner of CMPF, Ranchi has deposed that he was posted as Regional Commissioner. CMPF at Ranchi since February, 1993 and the claim application of the deceased Mohra Munda was received in his office and it was entered into the central diary of the office as Diary No. 3101 dated 30.12.1992 and, thereafter, it was handed over to the appellant who was the Dealing Assistant in respect thereof. He has further deposed that Ext. 12/2 is the endorsement dated 10.1.1993 per pen of the appellant in the file regarding settlement of claim of GPF of deceased Mohra Munda. His evidence is further to the effect that the appellant settled the claim on 10.7.1993 of the said deceased and he had passed the order thereon for final payment on 13.7.1993 when the said file was put up before him on 12.7.1993. In para 5 of his cross-examination he has specifically deposed that the file relating to the final settlement of the GPF amount of the deceased. Mohra Munda remained with the appellant from 30.12.1992 to 10.7.1993 and the said file was sent to the Section Incharge (PW 8) on 12.7.1993. He has also deposed that he cannot say as to why the said claim of the deceased was not settled by the appellant during that period and also as to why the said matter was not brought to his knowledge during that period. His evidence is further to the effect that after according sanction of the payment of the GPF amount the file was again sent back to the appellant. Exts. 12 and 13 series corroborate the evidence of PWs 8 and 9 referred to above. From the evidence aforesaid it transpires that after the receipt of the claim application for final payment of the GPF amount of the deceased this appellant sat over the file w.e.f. 30.12.1992 till 10.7.1993 and he awoke from his deep slumber only when PW 2 met him on 9.7.1993 and on approach having been made for the expeditious disposal of the said file on his tacit acceptance of the payment of the illegal gratification as demanded if agreed by PW 3, the widow of the said deceased. It is equally relevant to mention here that when the claim application is otherwise in order the claim is settled within one month of its receipt and PW 9, the Provident Fund Commissioner in para 5 of his evidence has deposed to that effect. There is nothing on the record to show that the claim application was not in order and during that period no objection in respect thereof has also been raised by the appellant. This is a circumstance of unimpeachable character which leads to a positive inference that the appellant waited till the period he was approached for expediting the matter and contacted by PW 2. It is, therefore, evident that the appellant was responsible for settling the claim of GPF of the deceased Mohra Munda and on tacit assurance of PW 2 when approach on 9.7.1993 he moved the file in respect thereof and the final order of the payment of the claim was ordered on 13.7.1993 and he had received the illegal gratification of Rs. 300/- from PW 2 on 16.7.1993 which was recovered by PW 7 in presence of two independent witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and 5 as well as other members of the trap party from his conscious possession which was handed over to him by PW 2 on demand and accepted by him in the tea shop aforesaid. It is equally pertinent to mention here that there is no material on the record to show that the tainted currency notes which have been recovered from the conscious possession of the appellant was not accepted by him as a reward or motive for the official act done by him in connection with the settlement of the claim of deceased Mohra Munda.
There is legal evidence on the record to show that the appellant had made demand of Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification and the said tainted Government currency notes were delivered to him by PW 2 which he has kept in the upper chest pocket of his bushirt and as a result of the trap the said tainted currency notes were recovered from his conscious possession so all these steps taken together lead to the conclusion that the appellant had in fact obtained the peculiarly advantage, namely, that he received the illegal gratification. PW 2 had parted with the tainted money and the same came under the hold and control of the appellant and he was found in possession of the tainted money and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had not come into the possession of the tainted money and when once this requirement i.e. the appellant came into possession of the tainted money is satisfied then the only inference is that he had accepted illegal gratification and thus obtained the peculiarly advantage which is definitely a misconduct on his part. It is the settled principle of law that when it is established by legal evidence that illegal gratification was paid and accepted by a public servant, presumption arises that it was paid and accepted as a motive or reward to do or forbear from doing any official act find the mere fact that the currency notes reached the hands of the appellant is a sufficient corroboration of the trap witnesses. The ratio of the cases of Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi (supra), M.W. Mohiuddin, (supra) and Jagjeevan Prasad (supra) have their application to the facts of the case at hand. The evidence referred to above of the prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and reliable and there is ring of truth therein and their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of absence of evidence of any independent witnesses. The evidence of the trap witnesses can be accepted and acted upon without corroboration. It is relevant to mention here that PW 7, DSP, CBI who had arranged the trap had no interest against the appellant but the verve shown by him to bring his trap to a success is no ground to think that he had any animosity against the appellant and the evidence of such a witness can be acted on even without the help of any corroboration. The ratio of the case of State of U.P. (supra) squarely covers the matter in respect thereof. It is equally relevant to mention here there is no infirmity in the sanction order (Ext. 1) proved by PW 1 for the prosecution of the appellant in this case. No infirmity in the sanction has been pointed out by the appellant to show that there had been failure of justice or miscarriage of justice in this case on that account. The ratio of the case of Ranjit Sahay (supra) and Kalpnath Rai (supra) relied upon by the prosecution have its application in this case. I have dealt with the background of this case in detail while dealing with the evidence of PWs 8 and 9 above and my considered view is that the appellant had no reasonable explanation as to why he had kept the said file pending for a period from 30.12.1992 to 10.7.1993 for settling the claim of the deceased Mohra Munda. The only probable answer is that he was waiting to be approached in the matter and to receive illegal gratification for doing his official act. Therefore, the ratio of Gulam Mahmood A. Malik (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application in the facts of this case. The ratio of the case of Shivendra Kumar (supra) has also no application in the facts of this case. The sanction has been accorded by the Regional Commissioner. Coal Mines Provident Fund. Ranchi who is admittedly the Controlling Officers of the appellant Section 19(c) of the said Act provides that the previous sanction in case of any other person not covered by Sub-clause (a) and (b) of this section shall be accorded by the authority competent to remove him from his office. Therefore, I see no infirmity in the order according sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The ratio of the case of Suraj Mal (supra) is also of no help to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case. The learned Court below has properly weighed and considered the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Court below regarding the guilt of the appellant.
11. In this case the appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 7 and R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 13(2) of the said Act. Section 7 of the said Act mandates that a public servant taking gratification in respect of an official act shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall not be less than six months but it may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Under Section 13(2) of the said Act in case of a criminal misconduct of a public servant the punishment prescribed is up to seven years with fine but it shall not be less than one year. Corruption is a cancerous node and it is destroying the fabrics of the society and it has to be eliminated by all possible stringent measures within the bounds of law and one such measure is to provide condign punishment and Parliament measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals and that was precisely for the reason why the sentence was fixed as seven years and five years under Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the said Act respectively and directed that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given, the sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment of one year and six months respectively. Such a legislative insistence is a reflection of Parliament's resolve to meet corruption cases with very strong hand and to give signal of deterrence as the most pivotal features of sentencing of corrupt public servants. Therefore, modification of the sentence of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case shall give a wrong signal to the society and specially those public servants prone to corrupt practices. There is no special reasons shown by the appellant in this case for the modification of the sentence imposed by the trial Court. The sentence awarded to the appellant also does not appear to be severe and excessive. The loss of job of the appellant as stated by his learned counsel cannot be construed as a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser punishment to him in the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, I see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for modifying the sentence awarded to the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case. The modification of sentence shall definitely give an impression to the public servants who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with humility. Therefore, the ratio of the case of Biranchi Narayan Mohanty (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. Therefore, there is no reason to modify the sentence of the appellant in the facts and circumstances of this case.
12. To sum up the learned Court below has properly considered the evidence on the record and has rightly come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein. There is no merit in the appeal and it fails. The impugned judgment is hereby affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the Court below to serve out the sentence. The learned Court below is also directed to take all coercive step to apprehend the appellant in accordance with law to serve out the sentence.