Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The brief facts leading to this Cr. Appeal are that a letter of S.D.O., Madhupur addressed to the Circle Officer dated 10.06.2006 was to this effect that Upendra Raut accused/appellant herein was deputed on table No.1 to receive the application from the Old Age Pension Holders in the Camp which was arranged for selecting the genuine Old Age Pension Holders. In course of the camp proceeding, learned S.D.O. found that Upendra Raut- appellant/convict was counting three currency notes of 500/- each which he had received from one Md. Ibrahim Ansari and Md. Altaf as well. The number of currency notes were also mentioned in the letter. It was also alleged that Upendra Raut had received the currency notes as a bribe for those application for pension. The concerned C.O., Madhupur sent this letter to Karau P.S. under Sub Division Madhupur for lodging the F.I.R. Thereafter the Karau P.S. Case No. 43 of 2006 dated 10.06.2006 was registered under Section 420 I.P.C. and under Sections 5(1) (d) (2) of the P.C. Act against the accused Upendra Raut.

7. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case.

8. The learned trial court after hearing the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the accused and also the learned Counsel on behalf of C.B.I. passed the Judgment of conviction and sentence as stated hereinabove.

9. Aggrieved from the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence this Cr. Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court-below is based on the wrong appreciation of the evidence. The learned court-below has not appreciated the evidence in a proper perspective. It is also further submitted that three currency notes of 500/- are alleged to be received from Md. Ibrahim Ansari and Md. Altaf but none of them were examined on behalf of prosecution. It is also further submitted that there is no evidence in regard to demand of the bribery and the learned trial court has convicted the appellant on the mere seizure of memo of which the witnesses are only the interested person. Accordingly prayed to allow this Cr. Appeal and to set aside the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge concerned.

In cross-examination this witness says that the sanction order was received by the former I.O. He only filed charge-sheet after perusal of the evidence collected by the I.O. which was recorded in the case diary.

12.5 P.W.6 Vinod Chandra Jha is the Sub-divisional Officer in his Examination-in-chief has stated that the occurrence was of 10.06.2006. For selection of the beneficiary of old age the camp was going on in Karau block. At each table there were 2 to 3 staff on duty. At table No.1 Upendra Raut was deputed. He was counting the currency note under the table. He was asked what he was doing and found that there were three currency notes of 5,00/- each which was given to him by Md. Ibrahim Ansari and Md. Altaf. Thereafter the application and three currency notes were taken in custody and the F.I.R. was directed to be lodged by him. The office order was directed to C.O. by him which is marked Ext.3 and signature of the same are Ext.2/3.

21. From the testimony of all these prosecution witnesses, it is found that the only eye-witness in regard to counting the three currency notes by the appellant/convict Upendra Raut is P.W. 6 Vinod Chandra Jha Sub-divisional Officer, Madhupur. All other witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution have stated that they did not see the occurrence and did not see even the appellant-accused counting the note under the table. P.W. 6 has stated that he came to know that these three currency notes were given to the appellant/convict by Md. Ibrahim Ansari and Md. Altaf who had given their application to be selected as a beneficiary under Old Age Pension Scheme. But admittedly this witness in his cross-examination stated that he did not make any query in regard to giving the alleged bribery to convict Upendra Raut to get the favour for being selected as beneficiary under the Old Age Pension Scheme. From the testimony of this witness only counting the three currency notes by the appellant/convict is proved but it is not proved that these three currency notes of 5,00/- each total amounting 1,500/- was given to the appellant/convict by Md. Ibrahim Ansari and Md. Altaf. Neither Md. Altaf nor Md. Ibrahim were examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove either the demand of the bribe by the convict/appellant or accepting the same from Md. Ibrahim Ansari and Md. Altaf.