Jharkhand High Court
Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Kumari ... vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 10 August, 2020
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.887 of 2019
------
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2019 and Order of Sentence dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No.09 of 2011)
------
Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Kumari Pandey, aged about 34 years, wife of Vishnu Singh Tiwary, resident of Village- Pandu, P.O. Pandu, P.S. Pandu, District- Palamau (Jharkhand) .... .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance .... .... .... Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate
Mr. Anand Kr. Pandey, Advocate
For the Vigilance : Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court: Heard the parties through video conferencing.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2019 and Order of Sentence dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No.09 of 2011 whereby and where under the learned court below held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted her for having committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that that complainant-P.W.6- Sakaldip Vishwakarma was a Rojgar Sathi (Meth), involved in Panchayat Level Scheme No.03/2009-10 relating to construction of a pond in the field of Ram Raksha Vishwakarma. It is alleged that the appellant-accused while posted as Rojgar Sewak demanded bribe from P.W.6- the 1 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 complainant, for the payment of the wages of the labourers as the same was to be paid to the B.D.O. and told that unless the complainant pays Rs.1,000/-, the B.D.O. will not make the payment of the complainant. As the complainant was not intending to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Vigilance Bureau by submitting a written application marked Ext.6. On the basis of the written application of the complainant, P.W.9 conducted verification and finding the allegation of the written application to be true, the P.W.9 submitted his report. On the basis of the same, the F.I.R. of this case has been registered and a trap team was constituted. A successful trap was made on 29.03.2011, at the office of the appellant-accused was at Pandu Block and the appellant-accused was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. The post trap formalities were done. The P.W.10 being the I.O. of the case took charge of the investigation, obtained the sanction for prosecution and after completion of investigation submitted charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge for the said offences were framed against the appellant-accused and upon her denying the charges, she was put to trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has altogether examined ten witnesses besides proving documents. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused.
5. P.W.6- Sakaldip Vishwakarma is the complainant of this case. He has been declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution as he did not support the case of the prosecution. Before being declared hostile, the P.W.6 has stated that in the year 2011, he was involved in the work of construction of a pond under a programme in the field of Ram Raksha Vishwakarma. He was Rogjar Sathi (Meth). He did not get his remuneration in respect of his work. He submitted an application to the B.D.O. for the payment. He also submitted a written application to the Vigilance Bureau. On being proved by him, the same has been marked Ext.6. The Rojgar Sewak was demanding Rs.1,000/- to give to the B.D.O. The Vigilance Bureau Officers obtained his signature and told him to 2 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 deposit Rs.1,000/- demanded by the appellant-accused. P.W.6 deposited one note of Rs.500/- and five notes of Rs.100/- denomination each and came back to his house. The team of the Vigilance Bureau met him at Pandu Bazar (Market) and told him to remain near Jarasangh Bhawan of Pandu and the team went to the Block Office. While the team was returning, the team members told the P.W.6 that the payment of P.W.6 will be made but the payment was not made. The P.W.6 had never paid any money to the appellant-accused. After being declared hostile, the P.W.6 identified his signature over the G.C. note memorandum which was marked Ext.2/6. On being put leading questions by the prosecution, the P.W.6 denied the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, the P.W.6 has stated that he knows the appellant-accused as she belongs to the adjacent village of the P.W.6. The distance of Jarasangh Bhawan is 200 feet from the Pandu Block.
6. P.W.2- Kameshwar Kumar Sharma is a witness of seizure. He identified his signature on the seizure list which was marked Ext.3 and also identified his signatures on the G.C. note memorandum as well as the search-cum-seizure list. He has stated that the notes were seized. P.W.2 was also declared hostile and even though leading questions were put to him by the prosecution yet he did not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, the P.W.2 has stated that in his presence, no money was seized. He does not know for what purpose his signatures were obtained. To a question from the court, the P.W.2 stated that out of fear he did not give any information about his signatures being obtained.
7. P.W.3- Akhilesh Vishwakarma is the other seizure witness. He has identified his signatures over the seizure list, arrest memo of the appellant-accused and search-cum-seizure list as well as the G.C. note memorandum which were marked exhibits. The P.W.3 was also declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution and even after being put leading questions by the prosecution, he did not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross-examination, the P.W.3 has stated that he signed the seizure list at B-More which is under Rehala Police Station. The distance between B-More and Pandu Block is about 20 kilometres.
3Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019
8. P.W.1- Sunita Nutan Kachchap was an inspector of A.C.B. She has stated about the complaint made by the P.W.6 and the verification having been done by the P.W.9. The P.W.1 was a member of the trap team. She narrated in detail about the pre-trap preparation in detail. She further stated that on 29.03.2011, they proceeded to Pandu. She has further stated that the complainant-P.W.6 gave signal after giving the bribe money. The P.W.1 entered into the office of the appellant-accused and caught hold her both hands and the bribe money was recovered from the right hand of the appellant-accused in presence of the P.W.4. The numbers of the notes recovered tallied with the numbers mentioned in the general currency note memorandum. After preparing the Sodium Carbonate solution in two separate glasses, the hands of the appellant-accused were dipped in the same one after the other and upon washing the hands of the appellant- accused, the colour of the solution turned to pink. The coloured solution was kept in bottles and sealed and the signatures of the persons present there were obtained on the relevant documents and the sealed bottles. In her cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that she cannot say about the boundary of the Pandu Block. She categorically stated that she had not heard the appellant-accused demanding money.
9. P.W.4- Amit Kumar was the Special Magistrate of the Vigilance Bureau in the trap team. He has stated about the complaint made by the P.W.6 and also described in detail about the pre-trap preparations. The P.W.4 further stated that on 29.03.2011 at about 5:30 am, they proceeded to Pandu Block from Ranchi and took their positions near the place of occurrence. After reaching there, the P.W-6 entered into the office and passed on the bribe money to the appellant-accused and gave signal. Thereafter, the P.W.1 rushed and caught right hand of the appellant- accused and another police caught left hand of the appellant-accused. Here the P.W.4 departed from the testimonies of the other witnesses who stated that that the P.W.1 had caught both the hands of the appellant- accused. The P.Ws.2 and 3 who assembled there, on seeing the trap were requested to be the witnesses regarding the recovery of the money and they became the witnesses as such. The numbers of the recovered notes 4 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 tallied with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the G.C. note memorandum. P.W.4 also corroborated the testimony of the P.W.1 regarding the preparation of solution and dipping of the hands of the appellant-accused therein and the colour of the solution turning pink and also of preservation of the solution in bottles and sealing of the bottles. He further stated that he was standing at a distance of 50 to 100 metres from the Block Office. P.W.1 was standing at the main gate of the Block Office. The P.W.4 then stated that he was standing towards the north of the main gate of the Pandu Block. From the place at which the P.W.4 was standing, the appellant-accused was not visible to the P.W.4 and he went to the place of occurrence upon hearing the noise. The P.W.1 was the first person to enter inside.
10. P.W.5- John Pratap Bage was another member of the trap team. He has also stated about the complaint made by the complainant and the pre- trap preparations as stated by the P.Ws.1 and 4. They proceeded to Pandu on 29.03.2011 and reached there at about 1:30 pm. He has also stated about the trap and post trap formalities like washing of the hands of the appellant-accused with Sodium Carbonate solution. In his cross- examination, he has stated that they reached at a distance of 200 yards from Pandu Office at about 1:30 pm.
11. P.W.7- Manish Kumar is a formal witness. He has proved the sanction for prosecution of the appellant-accused. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the order of sanction for prosecution was neither typed nor the Deputy Commissioner signed the same in his presence. He also could not say which documents were looked into by the Deputy Commissioner before according the sanction for prosecution.
12. P.W.8 - Tuntun Prasad Singh was also a member of the trap team. Like P.W.1, 4 and 5, he also stated in detail about the complaint being made by the complainant (P.W.6). He then stated about leaving the office of Vigilance Bureau along with the trap team between 5:00 am-6:00 am and reaching the Pandu Block at about 1:00 pm. The P.W.6 went to the appellant-accused who was sitting in the B.P.O. room of the Block Office and after handing over the bribe amount, P.W.6 gave signal at which the 5 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 P.W.1 rushed forward and caught hold of both the hands of the appellant- accused. The bribe amount was in the right hand of the appellant-accused. Others also went running following the P.W.1. He has also stated in detail about the washing of the hands of the appellant-accused with Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turning pink. The P.W.8 further stated about the seizure list being prepared and the arrest memo of the appellant-accused being prepared. In his cross-examination, the P.W.8 has stated that he does not remember the name of the witnesses of the seizure list.
13. P.W.9 - Nawal Kishore Prasad was also an inspector of Vigilance Bureau and he was the verification officer in respect of the complaint of the appellant-accused. He further stated that he verified the complaint of the complainant by going to the house of the appellant-accused at Pandu. The appellant-accused was telling that if the complainant will not pay the bribe money the amount due and payable to the complainant as Meth will not be released to him. It is pertinent to mention here that in the complaint though it was alleged that the appellant-accused was demanding money to be paid to the B.D.O. yet in the verification, it has not been found that the money was demanded by the appellant-accused on behalf of the B.D.O. After finding the allegations to be true, the P.W.9 submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police at Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi. He has proved his report which was marked Ext.8. The P.W.9 was also a member of the trap team. He has stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. P.W.9 stated that on 29.03.2011 they left for Pandu Block at 5:30 am in two vehicles and reached at Pandu Block at about 1:00 pm. The P.W.6 contacted the appellant-accused and on being demanded by the appellant- accused, the P.W.6 handed over Rs.1,000/- to her and signaled. The P.W.1 went running and caught hold of both the hands of the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the I.O. of the case and the Special Magistrate also reached there along with the members of the trap team and others also assembled there. Out of the persons assembled, the P.Ws.2 and 3 were made seizure witnesses. The P.W.1 upon search recovered the bribe money from the body of the appellant-accused. It is pertinent to mention here that the 6 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 P.W.9 departed from the testimonies of the other witnesses regarding the recovery of money as though other witnesses have stated that the alleged bribe money was recovered from the right hand of the appellant-accused but the P.W.9 has stated that the money was recovered from the body of the appellant-accused. He has narrated in detail about the post-trap formalities including washing of the hands of the appellant-accused and the colour of the solution turning pink. In his cross-examination, the P.W.9 has stated that during the verification, he heard the conversation between the appellant-accused and the P.W.6 and on the basis of the same, he submitted his verification report. He further submitted that on 29.03.2011, the P.W.6 met the trap team outside Pandu Block. The P.W.9 called the P.W.6 near him. Thereafter, the I.O. sent the P.W.6 inside the block. Before sending him inside the block, the search of the P.W.6 was not made.
14. P.W.10- Shankar Uraon is the I.O. of the case. He has stated about the complaint made by the P.W.6. The same was verified by the P.W.9 and after that the case was registered. The investigation of the case was entrusted to the P.W.10. During the course of investigation, he got approved the trap team from the Superintendent of Police. He has stated in detail about the pre trap preparations. On 29.03.2011, they went to Pandu Block. The P.W.6 and P.W.9 were sent to hand over the bribe amount. It is pertinent to mention here that the P.W.10 has departed from the testimonies of the other witnesses as he has deposed that the P.W.9 was the shadow witness though neither the P.W.9 nor any other witness has stated that the P.W.9 was a shadow witness rather all the witnesses have stated that the P.W.1 was the first person after P.W.6 to reach the appellant-accused after the alleged handing over of the bribe amount. The P.W.10 further stated that after handing over the bribe amount, the P.W.6 came and signaled by wiping his face. The P.W.1 rushed and caught hold of the right hand of the appellant-accused and in the meanwhile, the trap team along with the Special Magistrate reached there. Out of the persons present there, the P.Ws.2 and 3 on being requested, agreed to be the witnesses. In presence of the witnesses, the P.W.1 searched the body of the 7 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 appellant-accused and upon such search Rs.1,000/- was seized from the hand of the appellant-accused. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.1 has not stated about making any body search of the appellant-accused rather she has categorically stated that she recovered the bribe amount from the right hand of the appellant-accused, after catching hold of her both hands. The P.W.10 also stated in detail and proved the relevant material exhibits and exhibits prepared in connection with post-trap formalities including the washing of the hands of the appellant-accused with Sodium Carbonate solution. In course of investigation, the P.W.10 recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the material exhibits to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi and finding the allegations against the appellant-accused to be true, submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination, the P.W.10 has stated that he recorded the statements at the place of occurrence on 28.03.2011 i.e. one day prior to the occurrence and again he recorded the statement of the witnesses at the place of trap. He reiterated his statement made in his examination-in-chief that P.W.9 went along with P.W.6 for handing over the bribe amount to the appellant-accused thereby contradicting the testimonies of the other witnesses in this respect.
15. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against the appellant-accused, wherein she denied the allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe and also denied all the allegations against her and pleaded innocence.
16. The learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record came to a conclusion that the circumstances established by the prosecution give rise to a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and convicted and sentenced as already indicated above.
17. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant-accused submitted that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that 8 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 there is absolutely no evidence in the record regarding the handing over of the alleged general currency notes to the appellant-accused as bribe. Mr. Tewari further submits that to bring home the charge for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the essential ingredients are the demand, acceptance or attempt thereof of any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act. In support of his contention, Mr. Tewari relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.14 of 2016 date of the judgment is 06.01.2016, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law regarding the ingredients of interalia section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as under:-
"It is well settled position of law that the demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The same legal principle has been held by this Court in the case of B. Jayaraj (supra), A. Subair (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra) upon which reliance is rightly placed by the learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant. The relevant paragraph 7 from B. Jayaraj case (supra) reads thus:
"7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. and C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI." (emphasis supplied) In the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), it was held by this Court as under:
"21. In State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao, this Court, reiterating its earlier dictum, vis-à-vis the same offences, held that mere recovery by itself, would not prove the charge against the accused and in absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe, conviction cannot be sustained."
18. Mr. Tewari to buttress his submissions further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of B. Jayaraj Vs. 9 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 paragraphs - 8 and 9 of which read as under:-
"8. In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witness, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself had disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-11) before LW 9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW 1 and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the learned trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.
9. Insofar as the presumption permissible to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is concerned, such presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not the offences under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any event, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand. As the same is lacking in the present case the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn are wholly absent." (Emphasis Supplied)
19. Mr. Tewari next relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. District Inspector reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 wherein in para- 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 (i) (d) and
(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in absence thereof, the charge thereof would fail.
10Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019
20. Mr. Tewari then submitted that in this case there is absolutely no evidence regarding the demand of illegal gratification. Therefore it is submitted that no offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is made out. It is then submitted that evidence of mere recovery of tainted money with the post trap formalities is by itself not sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 so the appellant-accused be acquitted of the charge by at least giving her the benefit of doubt. It is lastly submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge.
21. Mr. Suraj Verma, learned counsel for the Anticorruption Bureau on the other hand defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that as the P.W.4 has categorically stated about the facts of the case, so his testimony which is corroborated by the testimony of the P.Ws.1, 5, 8, 9 and 10 are sufficient enough to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Verma further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.961 of 2010 wherein in a case relating to the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the offences punishable under the Arms Act where Hon'ble Patna High Court observed as under:
"Merely because the informant was declared hostile, the First Information Report, in our opinion, is never rendered an inadmissible document. It is a document which is created in the light of the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C. It is the report regarding the commission of a cognizable offence committed by some persons known or unknown given to the Officer-in-Charge of a police station either in writing or orally. In case of an oral report, the duties is cast upon the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to reduce it into writing."
It is lastly submitted by Mr. Verma that as the learned trial court, taking into consideration the evidence in the record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, hence there being no merit in this appeal, the same be dismissed.
22. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going 11 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 through the evidence in the record, it is crystal clear that there is absolutely no evidence in the record regarding the demand or acceptance of money by the appellant-accused on the alleged date of occurrence on 29.03.2011 for the occurrence of which date the appellant-accused faced the trial. There is no shadow witness who accompanied the P.W.6- the complainant at the time of alleged handing over of the bribe amount. Though the P.W.10 made an effort by projecting the P.W.9 as the shadow witness but the said solitary testimony of the P.W.10 will not cut any ice as the P.W.9 himself has not claimed to be a shadow witness rather the P.W.9 as well as all the other witnesses of the prosecution who were the members of the trap team have categorically stated that the P.W.1 was the first person to reach the appellant-accused after P.W.6 and the P.W.6 alone went to deliver the bribe amount to the appellant-accused. So far as the judgment of Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Vs. State of Bihar(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Anticorruption Bureau is concerned, the facts of that case is in entirely different from the facts of this case. Unlike that case this being a trap case, the FIR was not registered on the basis of the application of the P.W.6- complainant rather the same was registered basing upon the verification report submitted by the P.W.9. Hence the ratio of Rajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Vs. State of Bihar(supra) is not applicable to this case.
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka (2014 AIR SCW 5740) in the facts of that case as the complainant did not support the case of demand of bribe and was declared hostile, observed as under :
"When PW1 Ramesh himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint in Exh.P1 before PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW3 Kumaraswamy and the contents of Exh.P1 complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused."
24. The P.W.6 who was the sole witness as per the case of the prosecution, who could have stated about the demand of bribe made by the appellant-accused on 29.03.2011- for the occurrence of which date the 12 Cr.App.(SJ)887 of 2019 appellant faced the trial, has categorically stated that that he did not make any payment to the appellant-accused obviously meaning thereby the appellant-accused did not make any demand. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this testimony of the P.W.6 that he did not give any money to the appellant-accused. No other witness has deposed about the demand of money by the appellant-accused on 20.03.2011 as none of the other witnesses has claimed to be an eyewitness of the P.W.6 handing over of the alleged bribe amount to the appellant-accused. In the absence of such evidence regarding the essential ingredients of demand on 29.03.2011, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish the charge for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the appellant-accused be acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubt.
25. Accordingly, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 06.08.2019 and Order of Sentence dated 09.08.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (A.C.B.), Palamau at Daltonganj in Vigilance Case No.09 of 2011 is set aside and appellant-accused namely Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Kumari Pandey is acquitted by giving her the benefit of doubt.
26. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant-accused namely Priyanka Kumari @ Priyanka Kumari Pandey is in custody. In view of her acquittal, she is directed to be released from custody unless her detention is required in connection with any other case.
27. In the result, this appeal is allowed.
28. Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower court records be sent to the learned court below forthwith.
29. In view of disposal of this appeal, the interlocutory application is dismissed being infructuous.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 10th of August, 2020 AFR/ Animesh 13