Allahabad High Court
Ratan Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 6 December, 2017
Author: Rang Nath Pandey
Bench: Rang Nath Pandey
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH [A.F.R.] [RESERVED] Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1567 of 2004 Appellant :- Ratan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- A.R.Dubey,O.N.Malviya,Prabhu Sharan,Rajesh Kumar,Sudhakar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Rang Nath Pandey,J.
1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act (West), Lucknow in Criminal Case No.17 of 1996 arising out of R.C. No.8(A)/1995 under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act'), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the P.C. Act along with fine of Rs.1000/-; awarded two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act along with fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo additional simple imprisonment of four months. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Prithvinath came to the office of Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Lucknow and lodged a report alleging therein that he is posted on the post of Yaan Paricharak (Coach Operator) at C.I.T. Office, Allahabad since 1983. The complainant was under the treatment of a Private Doctor for 21 days i.e. from 31.10.1994 to 13.11.1994 (14 days) and from 17.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 (7 days). Along with fitness certificate issued by the Private Doctor, he approached the Railway Doctor on which the Railway Doctor issued a fitness certificate. The complainant made an application with regard to sanction of his leave to the C.I.T., who sanctioned the leave of the complainant, but Ratan Kumar, Clerk, posted in the office of C.I.T. cancelled his leave and deducted salary of 21 days from the monthly salary. Thereafter, when the complainant met Ratan Kumar and asked the reason for cancellation of his leave, Ratan Kumar said that if you give Rs.1000/-, he would release the salary of the aforesaid period and would correct your leave account. According to the complainant, he does not want to give bribe. On the said complaint of the complainant, the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. passed an order for registration of a case and entrusted the investigation to Sri R.S. Sengar, Inspector.
3. On 22.2.1995, Sri R.S. Sengar (Investigating Officer), Inspector, Sri Jayant Kismiri, Inspector, Sri Vijay Kumar, S.I. and Narmada Yadav and two witnesses, namely, Adan Kumar and Brajaesh Shukla and complainant Prithvinath gathered at Officers' Rest House, Prayag. After introduction to each other, the said complaint was shown to them and a plan was prepared and was made to understand to the witnesses for trapping Ratan Kumar. Applied phenolphthalein powder to a piece of paper was given to Sri B.K. Shukla and Sri Shukla was instructed to wash his hands with Sodium Carbonate, which on such washing turned pink. A piece of paper applied with phenolphthalein powder and pink solution were sealed. Thereafter, serial numbers, being one currency of Rs.500/- and five currencies of Rs.100/-, furnished by the complainant were noted, phenolphthalein powder was applied to these currency notes and were put in the pocket of the shirt of complainant. Sri Shukla was instructed to accompany the complainant, hear the conversation between him and the accused and after completion of work, the complainant was instructed to give signal by cleaning his face. In this regard, a pre-trap memorandum was written by Sri R.S. Sengar, Inspector on which the Clerks of C.B.I. and independent witnesses put their signature.
4. After completion of pre-trap proceeding, witness Sri Shukla and the complainant went to office of the accused and after sometime Sri B.K. Shukla and the complainant gave the pre-decided signal whereupon the raiding party caught the accused in presence of another witness Adan Kumar. It may be noted that the accused-appellant had accepted Rs.1000/- from the complainant. On the saying of Adan Kumar, currency notes which were earlier treated in phenolphthalein powder, were taken out from the pocket of the accused and were tallied the numbers of the notes noted earlier and were found to be the same. The fingers of the appellant were washed in the sodium carbonate solution which then turned pink and same were seized. After putting the same in bottle, the pant which the appellant was wearing, was got removed and wash of pocket of the said pant, was taken which also turned into pink and the said liquid was also sealed.
5. The appellant was charged under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the charge, the prosecution examined P.W.1- Sri D.P. Singh, P.W.2- Sri Prithvinath Singh (complainant), P.W.3- Brijesh Kumar Shukla, P.W.4- Raeesuddin, P.W.5- R.S. Sengar and P.W.6- Kalyan Bhattacharya.
7. P.W.1-D.P. Singh has deposed that he was posted as Divisional Commercial Manager at Northern Railway, Allahabad and Ratan Kumar was posted as Head Clerk at the office of Chief Inspector Ticket, Allahabad (N.R.) in February 1991. He further deposed that case-diary and letter were received to him from S.P. Office, C.B.I., which contained case details and statements of witnesses. Permission to prosecute the accused was accorded by him on 31.03.1995 which is Exhibit Ka-1.
8. P.W.2- Prithvinath Singh, who is the complainant, moved the complaint stated that he was interested to get the accused-appellant trapped. He accompanied the team and proved the recovery of the treated notes from the possession of the appellant.
9. P.W.3- Brijesh Kumar Shukla, is said to be an independent witness and saw the accused accepting bribe and the reovery of the bribe money from the possession of the accused. He proved his signature on recovery memo i.e. Exhibit Ka-6.
10. P.W.4-Raeesuddin has deposed, in his statement, that from 1994 to 1996 he was posted as C.I.T., Administration at Allahabad Railway Station. The accused was posted as Head Clerk under him. He further deposed that the original leave acount sheet of Prithivinath, Coach Attendant is material, which has been maintained for the period from 04.02.1961 to 13.02.1994 at his office. On the last page of it, the medical certificate from 31.10.1994 to 13.11.1994 is mentioned which is in the handwriting of Ratan Kumar. He admitted the fact that Prithivinath had given a complaint addressing me to the effect that Ratan Kumar was asking money of Rs.1000/- as bribe for updation of his leave.
11. P.W.5 Sri R.S. Sengar is Inspector and Investigating Officer of the case. He accompanied the team and proved the recovery of the treated notes from the possession of the appellant. He proved his signatures on the memo. He proved the pre-trapping proceeding and trapping proceeding. He proved his signatures on both the memo of proceedings and recovery memo i.e. Exhibit Ka-6 and Exhibit Ka-17.
12. P.W.6 Kalyan Bhattacharya, has deposed that in 1995 he was posted as Inspector at A.C. Branch/ Wing of C.B.I.. He has further deposed that during investigation, he had recorded the statements of witnesses. He sent the bottles of sodium carbonate solution to C.F.S.L., New Delhi which were kept in the Malkhana of his office. After completion of investigation and obtaining the permission to prosecute the accused, the charge-sheet was filed and the report of C.F.S.L., New Delhi was also filed in original which are Exhibit Ka-18 and Ka-19 respectively.
13. The accused-appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., deposed that the witnesses are giving wrong and false statements against him. He further stated that Prithvinath was his debtor and Siddiqui used to support him. He denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication as a result of conspiracy. In support of his case, accused appellant examined D.W.1- Sri Tapan Singh Saha and D.W.2- Shri Bhola Nath (Beetle Shopkeeper).
14. D.W.1- Sri Tapan Singh Saha, has deposed that he knows Prithivinath and accused Ratan Kumar present in court. He has further deposed that he was sitting in the same office in which Ratan Kumar was sitting and that, Ratan Kumar had never demanded bribe from Prithivinath for discharing his official duty.
15. D.W.2- Shri Bholanath, in his deposition, has stated that his shop is in front of D.R.M. Office Headquarters since last 12-14 years. Ratan Kumar used to visit his shop. It was an afternoon of year, 1995, Ratan Kumar came to his shop to have betel. After giving the order for betel, he called a person.When he did not hear, he called him by his name as Prithivinath in loud voice. The accused said that his mother was suffering from poor health and asked him not to trouble him. The accused further asked him to return the money. Prithivinath replied that he is in trouble. He further deposed that Ratan Kumar and Prithivinath had exchanged hot words regarding return of money.
16. The learned court below while deciding the matter has framed four issues, in all, which are as under:
"(i) Whether accused Ratan Kumar is public servant?
(ii) Whether accused Ratan Kumar demanded Rs.1000/- from complainant Prithivinath to regularize his leave and he obtained the amount from Prithivinath?
(iii) Whether the amount given by complainant Prithivinath to the accused is in addition to his legitimate income?
(iv) Whether the money was obtained by accused Ratan Kumar from complainant Prithivinath for regularizing the leave account of the complainant?
17. As far as the issue no.1 is concerned, learned trial court observed that both the parties admitted the fact that accused Ratan Kumar was employed in the Railway Department as a public servant at the time of incident. Sanction for prosecution against the accused-appellant is a legal document. Therefore, issue no.1 was accordingly decided by the trial court affirmative.
18. So far as the issue no.2 is concerned, learned trial court has observed that the three ocular witnesses viz. P.W.2 Prithivinath, P.W.-3 Brijesh Kumar Shukla and P.W.5 R.S. Sengar, who were examined by the prosecution, have deposed that accused Ratan Kumar had demanded Rs.1000/- from the complainant Prithivinath.
19. So far as issue nos.3 and 4 are concerned, the trial court opined that some contradictions in the statements of ocular witnesses is normal which is not fatal to disbelieve their testimony. Learned trial court also opined that it will be the only presumption that the said amount had been received by the appellant, other than his legitimate remuneration. While appreciating the statements of the prosecution witnesses, learned trial court held that the currency given by Prithivinath was other than his legitimate remuneration and the said currency was demanded by the accused to regularize the leave account of complainant Prithivinath.
20. On the basis of the evidence on record adduced during trial and the statement of the eye-witnesses, trial court held the appellant guilty of charges levelled against him and convicted and sentenced him, as referred to above.
21. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
22. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove demand of bribe by the appellant. Recovery of Rs.1000/- from the accused has been admitted but this money has not been sought for regularization of leave account of the accused, rather this money had been paid by the complainant against an earlier loan lent by the accused to the complainant. In the F.I.R., the complainant had described about the leave from 31.10.1994 to 13.11.1994 and 17.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 and P.W.2- Prithivinath (complainant) has himself stated in his statement that Ratan Babu had been maintaining the leave records from 1975-1982. If accused Ratan Kumar was assigned the duty of maintaining leave record from 1975-1982 then how could he demand money from the complainant in respect of his leave for 1994. In this regard, bare reading of complete statement of P.W.2 clearly reveals that at very next moment he has also said that accused Ratan Kumar had joined as a clerk in 1991 and the leave records were being maintained by Sri Mishra from 1975-1982. It appears that due to slip of tongue this witness has firstly said that during 1975-1982 Mishra was maintaining the leave records but very next moment he stated that the leave records were being maintained by Ratan Kumar. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the trial court has given much weightage to the testimoney of P.W.-2 (Prithivinath) ignoring the fact that there are material contradictions in his statement.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the F.I.R., he has mentioned leave for two periods. As per his statement, the first leave is from 31.10.1994 to 13.11.1994. He shown Exhibit Ka-12 which is a letter of Chief Inspector Ticket, Northern Railway, Allahabad to contend that in this letter, the leave of the complainant was shown from 5.11.1994 to 13.11.1994. There is contradiction between the F.I.R. and Exhibit Ka-12 which signifies that the complainant lodged false complaint against the accused. He further contended that perusal of statement of P.W.4 Rahisuddin Siddiqui reveals that this witness has said in his deposition that perusal of the original account-sheet related to Prithivinath, Coach Attendant pertaining to the period from 4.2.1961 to 13.2.1994 indicates that the complainant Prithivinath was on medical leave from 31.10.1994 to 13.11.1994.
24. Learned counsel has also submitted that the leave of the complainant had been sanctioned on 11.11.1994. If the leave had been sanctioned in November, 1994 itself, then there is no logic of demanding and receiving money by the accused. Another leave mentioned in the F.I.R. is from 17.12.1994 to 23.12.1994. Perusal of roaster register reveals that there is signature of Prithvinath in the register on 18.12.1994. If the complainant was on duty on 18.12.1994, then how had he availed medical leave from 17.12.1994 to 23.12.1994.
25. Learned counsel has also submitted that the fact of putting phenolphthalein on the currency notes at 13.20 hours have been mentioned in pre-trap memo, whereas as per the version of P.W.2, when C.B.I. personnel caught accused Ratan Kumar on stairs, the time was shown as in between 11-12 o'clock. As per the version of P.W.-2, the money had been given on the stairs, whereas as per P.W.-3 B.K. Shukla, the money was given near the stairs.
26. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is to be taken as a whole and from the testimoney of witnesses it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant had demanded the money, received the money as narrated in the prosecution version and as such, the finding of the conviction recorded by the court below cannot be said to be perverse or unjustified.
27. Learned A.G.A. has also submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the demand of illegal gratification and recovery of the coloured notes from the possession of the appellant by the trap team and also the chemical re-action of the sodium carbonate qua, the appellant.
28. In support of his case, learned A.G.A. has relied on M. Narsingh Ram v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2001 (1) Supreme Court Page-691, A. Abdul Kafar v. State of Kerla, 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) Page-981 and T.Shankar Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh 2004 Supreme Court (Criminal)Page-870 to contend that if it gets proved in any trial that the accused had acepted any sum or valuable article other than his legitimate remuneration from any person for himself or any other person, it shall be presumed that he had accepted such money or valuable article for rendering service or disservice to exercise some official function or for favour of some person. This presumption is a legal presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and unless proved contrary, it shall be presumed that the accused had accepted the money only to exercise some official function in favour of the complainant.
29. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the evidence on record as well as statements of the witnesses.
30. It is not in dispute that complaint with regard to bribe was made by the complainant against the appellant. In presence of the Shadow witness, namely, Sri B.K. Shukla appellant made demand of bribe of Rs.1000/- and the said currency applied with phenolphthalein was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Trap proceeding has not been disputed.
31. Learned trial court has rightly observed that if any person appears for duty despite submitting the leave application, it cannot be said that his entire statement is false. Besides, the Court has laid down in State of Maharashtra vs. Narsingh Ram Gangaram reported in U.J. (80) 1984 Page 199 that in the cases of trap, evidence should not be evaluated with mathematical formula and minor contradictions should be ignored.
32. It reveals from persuing the statements of P.W.2 Prithivinath that it may be possible that he might have been on duty despite submitting his leave application for the period from 17.12.1994 to 23.12.1994 and proceeded with the train.
33. Learned trial court has rightly opined that some contradiction/ omission after lapse of considerable time is normal in the statements of ocular witnesses and on the basis, statement cannot be discredited. The prosecution version has been fully supported by the witnesses, who do not have animosity with the appellant.
34. After discussing the evidence and statements of the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, in detail, learned trial court has rightly held that the money given by Prithivinath was other than his legitimate remuneration and this money had been obtained by the accused to regularize the leave account of complainant Prithivinath.
35. In case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)4 SCC 305, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "Basically, the Court has to view the evidence in the light of probabilities and the intrinsic credibility of those who testify."
36. In case of Hazarilal v. The State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1980 SC 873 the Apex Court observed that "where the evidence of the Police Officer, who laid the trap is found entirely trustworthy, there is no need to seek any corrobration. There is no rule of prudence, which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accompalices and there should be insistence of corrobration."
37. Keeping in view the above propositions, when I examine the evidence of complainant (P.W.2), Shadow witness (P.W.3) and Inspector (P.W.5), in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find their to be evidence firm, cogent, consistent and wholly trustworthy. Apparently, there appears to be no reason for the complainant and other witnesses to have made false accusation against the accused of demanding bribe, since they did not entertain any ill will against him. The fact that hands and pocket of the accused gave pink colour to the solution of sodium carbonate amply established that he had accepted the tainted currency notes.
38. In the case of Madan Lal Vs. The State of N.C.T. of Delhi reported in 2010(9)AD Delhi 685, the following has been observed:
"23....The courts need to appreciate that the citizens in our country are most of the times reluctant even to lodge a complaint of demand of illegal gratification from them. Most of them pay the illegal gratification either with a view to get done something to which they are otherwise not entitled under the Rules or in order to get their matter expedited or with a view not to antagonize the public servant dealing with their matter, lest he puts obstacle in their way by taking a view or recording a note unfavourable to them. When a person takes the step of going to the Anti Corruption Branch, making a complaint, and getting a trap organized, he knows it very well that it was going to cost him a lot of inconvenience and harassment. Firstly, he has to visit the office of Anti Corruption Branchand pay the bribe money from his pocket. He has to complete a number of formalities in the office of Anti-Corruption Branch and then accomapny the officials constituting the raiding party to the place of the accused. He then has to visit the office of the Anti Corruption Branch in connection with the investigation of the case and thereafter he has to attend the court on a number of occasions. While doing all this, the complainant has to necessarily remain away from the work or business in which he is engaged and thereby he sacrifices a lot of his precious time and possibly also the money which he could be earning utilizing that time. He has to withstand a grilling cross-examination at the hands of the defence counsel and also face the animosity of not only the public servant got trapped by him but also of his colleagues, who will be antagonized with him, on account of his getting a colleague of theirs trapped for accepting bribe. A person making complaint against a public servant knows it very well that in the department of the acused, no one may like to deal with him in future and in fact the colleagues of the accused are only likely to put obstacles in the work which he may have in the department. Therefore, most of the time, a person, from whome bribe is demanded, either pays up the money or he simply withdraws, instead of reporting the matter to the Anti Corruption Branch and going to the extent of being member of a raiding party. It is only in extreme cases where a citizen has a strong feeling of having been wronged or where he is so much conscious of his rights that instead of keeping silent or paying money, he wants a bribe seeker to be punished that he goes to the Anti Corruption Branch, make a complaint and then follows that complaint to its logical conclusion. Ordinarily the testimony of the complainant need to be believed unless there are strong and compelling reasons creating serious doubt on the truthfulness of his testimoney."
39. Had the appellant not demanded bribe from the complainant, there would be no reason for him to take the trouble of going to the office of Anti Corruption Branch, shelling out Rs.1000/- and then accompany the police team to the place where the bribe was paid and later recovered from the possession of the appellant.
40. The recovery of currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder also finds corroboration from the deposition of Investigating Officer, in whose presence and on whose direction the shadow witness B.K. Shukla recovered Rs.1000/- from the right pocket of the pant of the appellant. The numbers of currency notes recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of the appellant were tallied with the numbers recorded in the pre-raid report. The right hand wash of the appellant was taken by him in clear solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink. This clearly shows that the appellant had come into contact with the currency notes which the Investigating Officer had earlier treated with phenolphthalein powder. It would not have been possible without the appellant accepting the currency notes from the complainant. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that the appellant has demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.1000/- from the complainant and the said money was recovered by the C.B.I. personnels from his possession.
41. In the case of M. Narsinga Rao v. State of Andhara Pradesh (supra), the Deputy Superintendent of Police told the court that on the complainant approaching him, he smeared the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant had accepted those currency notes from the complainant. During trial, neither the complainant nor the Shadow witness supported the prosecution. The Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the raid told the court that when the appellant was caught red handed with those currency notes, he never demurred to him that those notes were received by him. The defence taken by the appellant during trial was that the currency notes were stuffed into his pocket. The Supreme Court in these circumstances, felt that the story of stuffing of currency notes into the pocket of the appellant had been concocted by him after a period of four years when he faced trial in the court. In the present case also, appellant has admitted that he has received the currency from the complainant but tried to set up a story of that the said amount in fact was the amount which the appellant had taken as a loan from him.
42. Section 20 of the P.C. Act provides that where in a trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or sub-section (1) of Section 13, it is proved that the accused person had accepted or obtained or had agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification (other than legal remuneration), it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he had accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification as a motive or reward as is mentioned in Section 7 or as the case may be without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.
43. In M. Narsinga Rao (supra), the Supreme Court held that it is obligatory for the Court to draw the statutory presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore,if it is proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification, the Court must presume that the money was accepted as a motive or reward for doing or bearing to do any official act, etc. Though the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is rebuttable, the appellant has not made any such attempt. He does not claim that the currency notes were accepted by him as a motive or reward, but in some other connection.
44. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana, (1974) 4 SCC 560, the appellant, an Assistant Station Master, was found in possession of marked currency notes given to him by a passenger, whose bedding has been detained by them. It was held by the Supreme Court his being caught red-handed was a case of res ipsa loquitur as the very things speaks for itself in such circumstances.
45. In the present case, even if the aforesaid statutory presumption is not drawn, the direct deposition of the complainant, corroborated by the Shadow witness and the raiding officer leaves no reasonable doubt about the guilt attributed to him.
46. The appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act since being a public servant, he accepted from the complainant gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for getting the leave entries correct.
47. Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act to the extent it is relevant for the present case, provides that a person is said to commit criminal misconduct, inter alia, if he (i) by corrupt or illegal means or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant obtains himself any pecuniary advantage.
48. The expression "corrupt or illegal means" has not been defined in the Act. Illegal would obviously mean something which the law prohibits. The definition of the expression ''corrupt' in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary includes something influenced by bribery. This expression would also include something which is morally unsound, dishonest, depraved or pervert. Therefore, accepting money as bribe would certainly amount to use of corrupt means. Since taking or attempting to take bribe is prohibited by law, such an act would also amount to use of illegal means. The appellant, therefore, is guilty of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act since he took Rs.1000/- from the complainant by corrupt and illegal means.
49. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala reported in AIR 1963 SC 1116, abuse means misuse i.e. using one's position for valuable things, for which it is not intended. The abuse of official position by a public servant may not necessarily be by use of corrupt or illegal means. If a public servant obtains valuable things or pecuniary advantage by use of corrupt or illegal mean without abusing his position as public servant, that would amount to criminal misconduct in terms of sub clause (i), whereas if he obtains valuable things or pecuniary advantage by abusing his position, that would consitute an offence under sub clause (ii) irrespective of whether he employs corrupt or illegal means to obtain such a valuable thing or advantage or not.
50. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions, it is proved that appellant has abused his position as a public servant by demanding and accepting Rs.1000/- from the complainant on the assurance that if the aforesaid amount was paid to him, he shall not maintain the leave account of the complainant. Had the appellant not been holding the position of a public officer, it would not have been possible for him to extend such a demand. He, therefore, has rightly been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act read with Section 13 (2) thereof.
51. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances discussed herein above, there is no error much less illegality committed by the trial court as would call interference.
52. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court are affirmed. The appellant, who is on bail, shall be taken into custody to serve the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him by the trial court in Criminal Case No.17 of 1996 vide judgment and order dated 9.7.2004. The Trial Court record be returned forthwith.
Order Date: 06/12/2017 Rahul/ Ashish/GK Sinha
[Rang Nath Pandey, J.]