Bilokan Bara vs The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the State-CBI.

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.07.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 16A of 2002 (R), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and directed to undergo R.I. for 2 years alongwith the fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default stipulation for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half (2 ½ ) years alongwith the fine of Rs. 15,000/- with default stipulation for the offence under Section13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the present appellant, the then Manager at Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch had advanced loan of Rs. 25,000/- in the month of March, 2002 for running a flour mill to one Patras Kundulna, to which the complainant stood as guarantor. It is alleged that since Patras Kandulna was not running flour mill properly. In the month of May, 2002, Patras Kandulna showed inability in running the flour mill business, hence, the complainant sought permission from Patras Kandulna to run the said flour mill. It is alleged that on 29.11.2002 at about 6:00 P.M., the Manager of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch, namely Bilokan Bara (present appellant) came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification by 07.12.2002, otherwise, he would lodge false case against him. It is further alleged that the complainant had made payment of installment of Rs. 3,000/- on 30.11.2002 in spite of that, he was asked to deposit Rs. 3,000/- by 07.12.2002. The complainant was not inclined to pay bribe, as such, he reported the matter to S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi for taking action against the accused. The allegation was verified and found to be true and genuine. After enquiry, F.I.R. was accordingly registered and thereafter trap was led by C.B.I. team. After completing all the formalities of trap, the accused was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant/informant in presence of independent witnesses on 04.12.2002. After chemical examination of the hands of the accused and formalities of trap, the memorandum of recovery-cum-seizure was prepared and the accused was remanded to jail custody.

On the basis of above, an F.I.R. being Crime No. RC 16(A) of 2002 (R) was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988.

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant for the offence under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The sanction for prosecution was also granted by the Competent Authority. Accordingly, cognizance on the aforesaid offences were taken.

The appellant denied from the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution apart from following documentary evidences:

XXXIX. Exhibit-7: Report of C.F.S.L.

XL. Exhibit-8: Forwarding letter. XLI. Exhibit-9: Application form for loan (marked-x). XLII. Exhibit-10: Verification report. XLIII. Exhibit-11: Endorsement on verification report. XLIV. Exhibit-12: formal F.I.R. XLV. Exhibit-13: Pre-trap memorandum. XLVI. Exhibit-14: Memorandum of recovery. XLVII. Exhibit-15: Seizure memo dated 04.12.2002. XLVIII. Exhibit-15/1: Seizure memo dated 10.12.2002.

XLIX. Exhibit-I: Bottle containing demonstration work.

L. Exhibit-II: Envelope containing piece of paper. LI. Exhibit-III: Envelope containing phenolphthalein powder. LII. Exhibit-IV: Bottle containing R.H. work of the accused. LIII. Exhibit-V: Bottle containing L.H. work of the accused. LIV. Exhibit-VI: Envelope containing trap money. LV. Exhibit-VII to VII/29 : Tainted G.C. Notes of 100 denominations of 30 pcs. Rs. 3,000/-. LVI. Mark-X for identification: Application of Patras Munda for loan in 21 sheets.

The defence has also examined two witnesses, namely, DW-1Braj Mohan Prasad and DW-2 Ved Prakash apart from following documentary evidences:-

The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has committed serious illegality while appreciating the evidence of witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution. The testimony of main witness, namely, PW-6 complainant Deo Prasad Sahu and the shadow witness Lakho Tirky (PW-9) have failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance and recovery from personal and conscious possession of the appellant Bilokan Bara as bribe amount. The principal debtor Patras Kandulna examined as PW-8 admits that just after sanction of loan, he renounced the running of flour mill and handed over the flour mill machine to the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu illegally and in unauthorized manner. The complainant has stood guarantor of the loan amount. Admittedly, not a single installment of the loan amount, which was sanctioned in the month of March, 2002, was paid by Patras Kandulna from the very inception of advance given to him. It is also admitted fact that since the month of May, 2002, the complainant of this case took over the flour mill machine, installed at his home and started running the same. As per evidence of PW-8 Patras Kandulna and evidence of complainant PW-6 himself, he was obliged to pay the loan installment after taking the machine but he also failed to pay any installment till the month of November, 2002. The complainant approached the bank only in the month of November, 2002 and deposited Rs. 3,000/-. Thereafter, he was further directed to make payment of next installment by 07.12.2002. It is quite surprising about the complainant, who was not debtor in this case, although a guarantor was liable to pay the loan amount, whenever called upon by the bank, the complainant taking advantage of the situation and for his own benefit of subsidy, especially, granted to SC/ST categories under the Scheme of S.J.S.Y, started putting pressure upon the bank official to illegally get transferred of the loan account in his favor. He has also not paid the installment rather with a view to save his own skin from prosecution lodged this case. It is further submitted that in the entire trap proceeding, there was presence of PW-9 & PW-6, i.e., Lakho Tirky and Deo Prasad Sahu respectively, but none of them have stated that any demand of bribe was made by the appellant with the complainant rather loan account passbook was produced and after taking the loan account passbook, put stamp on the photograph of Patras Kandulna and received money towards payment of installment, money was counted by him and kept on table. In the meantime, all the formalities of trapping were conducted and hands of the accused were washed in the liquid of sodium carbonate. Although, the trap proceedings has been conducted in this case but the gist of the offence regarding demand of bribe or illegal gratification for showing any favor to the complainant in respect of loan account, its acceptance and direct recovery from possession of the appellant has not been proved in this case. The entire factual aspect of this case clearly indicates that the original principal debtor was never brought into picture, while lodging of this case and at the time of preparation of pre-trap memorandum and post-trap memorandum, the investigating officer (PW-10 S.K. Sinha), has also admitted that word "Bribe" has never been used in the entire conversation between the complainant and the accused at the time of delivery of money. The loan account passbook was also seized by the complainant on 10.12.2002 nearly after one week of the incident. It is apparent that at the time of approaching the bank on 04.12.2002, the appellant has only asked for loan account passbook and the money was to be deposited in the said account as loan installment and the money, after being counted, was also put on table. If the appellant had any ulterior motive or intending to receive bribe, the money could never been put on table. The factual spectrum does not show any body language of the appellant as receiving any bribe amount. The entire case is based upon no preliminary enquiry made at the bank branch office prior to institution of complaint. B. C. Chourasia, Inspector, C.B.I., Ranchi, who submitted verification report of the complaint, has also not been examined in this case, reason best known to the prosecution. The sanction order has not been proved by any of the competent witness. Therefore, the demand of installment for satisfying the loan account has been given color of bribe in this case by the complainant and falsely implicated the appellant with a view to avoid the liability from loan, to which, he had stood guarantor and also to take benefit of subsidy, which he was never entitled. It is further submitted that due to unwarranted misdeed of an unscrupulous, the present proceeding was initiated against an innocent bank official and the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of main witnesses of facts in the light of materials elicited in the cross-examination of the investigating officer, has recorded the findings about guilt of the appellant, which is absolutely beyond the weight of evidence, illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside. The appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him and, accordingly, this appeal may be allowed.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the state-CBI has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove all the ingredients of offences under Sections 7 & 13(1) read with 13(2)(d) of the P.C. Act. In section 20 of the P.C. Act, there is presumption against the accused if the foundational facts are proved. The appellant has miserably failed to explain or offer any valid and cogent reason for false implication either in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. or adduced by defence evidence. The appellant has been caught red handed while asking and accepting bribe of Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant in order to show favor for running flour mill by him, although he stood as guarantor for the loan. The chemical examination report conducted by C.F.S.L., Kolkata also corroborates prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution and committed no error of law while convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offence calling for any interference in this case. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the records of the case alongwith the impugned judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of both side.

The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious error or law calling for any interference or not?

Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial.

It appears that altogether 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.

PW-8 Patras Kandulna- According to his evidence, in the year 2001-02, he was residing at Village Jorobari. He applied for a loan for installing a flour mill before Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch. He has proved his application alongwith his photo affixed on the application which was filled up by the then bank manager and signed by this witness in total 21 pages, marked ext.-9 for identification. He has further deposed that loan was sanctioned in his favour and he also installed flour mill but after some days, his wife became ill then he was incapable to run the flour mill, then he handed over the charge of mill for running the same to Deo Prasad Sahu (complainant-cum-PW-6) because he was also guarantor in the loan transaction of this witness. He has further deposed that Deo Prasad Sahu took away the flour machine and started running the same and outcome of income, he was also given some share and from that income, he used to pay the installment of laon. He also admits that he gave flour machine to Deo Prasad Sahu on oral agreement without entering into any written agreement. After some day, he came to know that the branch manager Bilokan Bara (appellant) asked bribe from Deo Prasad Sahu and was apprehended taking bribe. Thereafter, local M.L.A., Neel Tirkey of Simdega area visited to this witness and requested to come to police station, where his signature was obtained on a blank paper and he had no occasion to see the same paper again.

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he installed the flour mill after taking loan at his house. He has three sons but he himself was running the flour mill. He never lodged any written information at the bank that he has given the flour machine to Deo Prasad Sahu. He also admits that out of income from running of the flour mill by Deo Prasad Sahu, some money was given to him that was used to pay the installment of loan and up till now, he had paid eight installments. (Admittedly, loan was taken in the year 2001-02 and PW-8 was examined on 08.01.2004, till then he has paid only eight installments). It also admits that he was never asked for any bribe by the bank manager, Bilokan Bara. This witness again reiterates that still the flour machine is installed at the house of Deo Prasad Sahu and he never informed the bank about said transaction with Deo Prasad Sahu.

PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu is another important witness of this case. According to his evidence, he runs a grocery shop at his village Kohiyar. He knows Patras Kandulna, who is his friend. He has further deposed that Patras Kandulna took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch for running a flour mill and he stood guarantor to the said loan. He has also proved his signature at two places on the bank loan paper as a guarantor, which has been marked ext.- 2/27 & 2/30. He has also identified the signature of Patras Kandulna on the documents of thirty one pages marked as ext.- 2/31 to 2/61. He also states that flour mill was installed at the house of Patras Kandulna after sanction of loan in his favour but he could not run the same properly due to illness of his wife. He has further deposed that on request of Patras Kandulna that he is not able to pay the bank loan installment regularly, hence, he took over the flour machine and after installing at his house the same on May, 2002, it was being run by this witness and out of income, he paid loan installment. In the meantime, on 29.11.2002 at about 6:00 P.M., bank manager of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch namely Bilokan Bara met this witness at his house and told that you are running the flour mill, hence, you will give Rs. 3,000/- as bribe otherwise, a case will be instituted against him and you may go to jail. Therefore, this witness deposited Rs. 3,000/- as installment of loan on 30.11.2002 but the bank manager told him to again give Rs. 3,000/- on 07.12.2002. He was not desirous to pay bribe, hence, he lodged a complaint on 03.12.2002 before S.P., C.B.I. at the office of C.B.I. He has proved his written report as Ext.-5. Thereafter, C.B.I. Inspector, B.C. Chourasia met him and interrogated about the occurrence and he remained at the office of C.B.I. on that night. In the next day morning at about 5:30 A.M., Parmanand Barla and Lakho Tirkey came at C.B.I. office as witness. He was also introduced with other officials, namely, Mukesh Verma, Chetan Mahto, R. S. Solanki and S. K. Sinha. He has further deposed that R. S. Solanki smeared Phenophathelien power on a paper and on his direction, Parmanand Barla touched the above paper by his right hand fingers, which was washed with sodium carbonate and the colour of the liquid turned into pink. The said liquid was sealed on a bottle and signed by all the witnesses alongwith this witness. He has further proved his signature as ext.- 2/62 and the bottle in which the liquid was sealed is previous marked as material ext.- I. He has further stated that the said paper was kept in an envelope and sealed and signed by all the witnesses. The envelop is marked as material Ext.-II and signature of this witness is marked Ext.- 2/63. Thereafter, he was asked Rs. 3,000/-, then his gave 30 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. The proof of currency notes were recorded and also seared with phenophathelien power. The said notes were also given to this witness, which he put on upper pocket of his shirt and remaining phenophethelien power was kept in an envelop and sealed, which was also signed by him, marked Ext.- 2/64 and the envelope is already marked as material Ext.-III. All the witnesses and C.B.I. officials and this witness were instructed for further action. He was advised that when the manager, Bilokan Bara receives the money, he will point out the team by combing his hair by right hand. Thereafter, memorandum of pre-trap was prepared and signed by everyone. This witness has proved is signature and memorandum as Ext. 2/65 to 2/69.

He has further deposed that, thereafter, this witness alongwith other C.B.I. Officials proceeded for Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch and reached there at about 12:55 P.M. He alongwith Lakho Tirkey (PW-9) went towards upper story of the bank office and S. K. Sinha (PW-10) was standing near the gate of the bank. He met with branch manager, Bilokan Bara and branch manager told him that “ “, then he replied, “ ”. Thereafter, bank manager, Bilokan Bara asked the bank loan passbook in the name of Patras Kandulna and stamped on the passbook and returned the same receiving money in his right hand. He also counted the note from his both hand and put the same on his office table and told this witness to run the flour mill without any hindrance. At the same time, he also signaled by combing his hair by right hands, then S. K. Sinha and other officials came there and bank manager was challenged by S. K. Sinha that he has taken Rs. 3,000/- as bribe. Then, the bank manager Bilokan Bara became nervous. His both hands were caught and duly washed with liquid of sodium carbonate and fingers of right hand put in the said liquid, which turned into pink. The liquid was sealed in a bottle and signed by independent witness alongwith this witness who has proved his own signature as Ext.- 1/65 and the bottle as previous material Ext.-IV. Thereafter, left hand was also dipped in the said liquid which also turned into pink and liquid was preserved in a bottle and sealed and signed by this witness. The currency notes number, given to the manager Bilokan Bara, were again noted, which was put in envelop and sealed and signed by witnesses. He has also proved signature over the same. He has also stated that the memorandum and all the proceedings taken by the C.B.I. Officials was prepared in 11 pages, which were also signed by him, marked as Ext.-2/68 to 2/78. He has also proved receipt of deposit of Rs. 3,000/-installment of the loan on 30.11.2002, marked as Ext.- 6 This witness has been extensively cross-examined by defence, wherein, he admits that he was running grocery shop since 1991. Although, he has expressed no knowledge that on earlier occasion also Patras Kandulna was granted loan for running flour mill, which was closed after the payment of loan. Again, he applied for loan for running a new flour mill and having experience of running flour mill since 1995, hence, loan was sanctioned to him. This witness further admits that just after two months of sanction of loan in favor of Patras Kandulna, he took over the flour machine and started running the same. On the date of occurrence also, flour mill was lying at his home and being run by him. He also admits that flour mill loan sanctioned in favor of Patras Kandulna, was under scheme of Swarn Jayanti Swarojgar Yojna being a member of Scheduled Tribe. He was also given a grant of Rs. 10,000/-apart from loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- and this witness was guarantor in the said loan. He also admits that he is not belonging to tribal community and he could not get the grant of subsidy of Rs. 10,000/-, if loan may have been sanctioned to him. He was also not entitled for the sanction of said loan in his favor because he was already running a grocery shop. He also admits that under the self-employment scheme, the loan application is being processed through B.D.O. (Block Development Officer) and he recommends about sanction of loan to the bank. He also admits that his savings bank account on the same branch of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch was lying as guarantee for the said loan. He also admits that as per loan agreement between bank and Patras Kandulna, no other person can be permitted to run the flour mill except the principal debtor without permission of the bank. His signature on bank loan agreement is also marked Ext.-A.

He further admits that in the month of March, 2002, loan was sanctioned and since month of May, he started running the flour mill without giving any oral or written information to the bank. He was not informed that the flour mill was still property of bank. He also admits that after taking flour mill from Patras Kandulna, he undertook to pay installment of the machine. He further admits that at the time of taking flour mill machine from Patras Kandulna, which was given in writing by Patras Kandulna that he is not able to rune the flour mill and the said document was given to C.B.I. Officials by him but the same was not retuned to him by C.B.I. Officials and at the time of his evidence, also that document was not shown by the C.B.I. Official. He further reiterates that since he has taken over the flour mill and running for the first time, he gave Rs. 3,000/- as installment of bank loan. There was nothing to pay in the month of December. He also admits that his economic condition was not sound, hence, he requested the bank manager that he has given Rs. 3,000/- in the month of November and within a week, i.e., by 7^th December, he has again to pay further Rs. 3,000. Then, he was threatened of institution of a case and sending him to jail. He did not protest that he has deposited the complete installment till month of November and December, hence, why will he be prosecuted and sent to jail. This fact was also not disclosed by him to Patras Kandulna, who was the principal debtor before lodging case at C.B.I. He also admits that in overall proceedings conducted by C.B.I., Patras Kandulna was not in figure at all. He further admits the loan agreement between the bank and Patras Kandulna as Ext.-C and guarantee document bearing signature of this witness as Ext.-D, printed endorsement as Ext.-E, guarantee format as Ext.- F.

In his cross-examination, this witness further admits that when the pre-trap memorandum was prepared and when he went to the branch office, he met with Bilokan Bara and saluted him. Bilokan Bara told him that have you brought money and also asked passbook of loan account. Thereafter, he asked the money saying that he can run the flour mill without any obstacle. He also admits at that time, Bilokan Bara told that “पतरस कंडुलना का जो आटा चक्की चला रहे हो , उसका पैसा दो।” He also states that word „Bribe” was also used by Bilokan Bara. His attention was also drawn towards the post-trap memorandum, wherein no word of

On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses.

DW-1 Braj Mohan Prasad is clerk-cum-cashier in Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch. According to his evidence, each Wednesday is observed as no working day but bank remains open for the purpose of realization of loan amount. On 20.05.2004, three deposit vouchers in respect of debt recovery was realized by him as in-charge bank manager. He has also worked as in-charge bank manager on instruction of Head office. He has produced Xerox copy of the same certified to be credibility of original, which was marked as Ext. A-G (with objection). There is nothing in his evidence as to how the aforesaid vouchers are related to the facts of this case.

DW-2 Ved Prakash is another bank manager of Kshetriya Gramin Bank posted at Balagang Branch. He has simply stated about honesty and discipline work and conduct of the accused and expressed nothing personal knowledge about the factual aspects of in this case.

It is also pertinent to apprise with Sections 7, 13(1) r/w 13(2)(d) and 20 of the P.C. Act for better appreciation of the case.

I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and the material evidence available on record.

It appears that in the instant case, the pith and substance of the material lies in demand of Rs. 3,000/- as bribe for running a flour mill by a guarantor, not by the principal debtor. It is admitted fact that the principal debtor belonged to tribal community and he was advanced a loan of Rs. 25,000/- on 30.03.2002 for establishing a flour mill, which was established by him at his house, just at the time of disbursement of loan in the month of March, 2002. It is also admitted position that the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu, who stood guarantor of the loan, took over the flour mill from the principal debtor and started running the same on his request and undertaking to pay the installment of loan amount. This understanding between the principal debtor and guarantor was never communicated to the concerned bank manager, who happens to be accused (appellant) in this appeal. It is also admitted fact that since month of March, 2002 to till 30^th November, 2002, not a single installment towards re-payment of loan was paid either by the principal debtor or by the guarantor. It is also admitted by the complainant that the accused visited him and asked for Rs. 3,000/-towards payment of installment which was paid by him on 30.11.2002 but he was further demanded of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited by 7^th December, 2002 as illegal gratification by the said manager. The principal debtor never came into light while lodging the complaint rather it is specific case of the complainant that he was asked to pay Rs. 3,000/- as bribe by the appellant on 29.11.2002 itself and he deposited the installment of Rs. 3,000/- on 30.11.2002 in the loan account of principal debtor Patras Kandulna and he was further asked to deposit Rs. 3,000/- by 7^th December. Since, the complainant was not desirous to pay the bribe, hence, he lodged the complaint before C.B.I. It is also obvious that one B.C. Chourasia, who is alleged to have conduced preliminary enquiry as regards genuineness and truth of the allegation levelled by the complainant, admittedly, he did not go to the concerned bank for any enquiry rather asked the some questions to the complainant and thereafter submitted the verification report and on that basis trap was organized. There is no dispute about organization of trap with preparation of pre-trap memorandum in presence of the concerned witnesses but so far as conduct of trap at the relevant time on 04.12.2002 at about 5:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., is concerned, the main witness examined by the prosecution or the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu (PW-6) and shadow witness Lakho Tirky (PW-9), as per complainant, when he alongwith Lakho Tirky reached in the office of present appellant for the purpose of laying trap, he wished him saying "pranam sir", which was also reciprocated by the accused. The original version of conversation between them in presence of Lakho Tirky is reproduced hereunder:- " (7) इसके बाद हमलोग सारा टीम क्षेत्र ीय ग्र ामीण बैंक ,

ने पकड़ा ग्ल ास में सोकडयम काबोनेट का घोल बनाया गया। .. ......" Thereafter, formality of testing by putting sodium carbonate in the liquid and washing of hand took place, which turned into pink and seizure memo was prepared, which has also been corroborated by CFSL report.

The shadow witness, Lakho Tirky (PW-9), who reached at the time of trap alongwith the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu (PW-6) as deposed in following words in his deposition, "….. कशकायतकताट देव प्र साद साहु के

The exact words of PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu and PW-9 Lakho Tirky as regards demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount form the appellant is Sine Quo Non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. It is crystal clear that both the witnesses have not whispered that the appellant was demanding any illegal gratification for showing any favour to the complainant. Admittedly, the appellant was first of all asked for loan account passbook for making entry of deposit that was also produced by the complainant. Thereafter, money was asked. There is no whisper by PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu that the said loan passbook was not returned to the complainant after putting stamp on photograph of principal debtor pasted on the passbook. There is whisper in the evidence of PW-9 that the appellant said after receiving the money as stated by the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu (PW-6) as "ठीक है जाओ आटा चक्की चलाओ , कोई कदक्कत नहीं है। ". The above material attention in the evidence of complainant that "ठीक है जाओ आटा चक्की चलाओ, कोई कदक्कत नहीं है। " clearly indicates that the appellant was resisting the running of flour mill by the complainant, who was simply a guarantor and not belonging to a member of Scheduled Tribe and in collusion with principal debtor Patras Kandulna in order to get huge amount as subsidy in loan, he got sanctioned of loan in favour of Patras Kandulna and just after two months took over the flour mill. It has also come into evidence that prior to this loan transaction also, the principal debtor Patras Kandulna had taken loan for establishing flour mill which was already re-paid and satisfied. In the entire episode, the principal debtor Patras Kandulna has not come into figure in lodging this case. Since, the complainant was himself doing an illegal act by taking over the flour mill and not deposited any amount of installment since very inception of the loan till 30.11.2002. After demand of installment amount, he maliciously lodged this case against the appellant.

It further appears that no proper preliminary enquiry was made by the concerned officer, Inspector B.C. Chourasia rather he interrogated with some questions to the complainant and submitted verification report without any enquiry. The complainant also admits that he stayed at C.B.I. Office all over the night on 03.12.2002 and on the next morning, trap proceeding was conducted. He also admits that first of all loan passbook was demanded by the appellant for making entry in the passbook and the amount to be deposited but that passbook was seized on 10.12.2002 form the possession of complainant (PW-6) as stated by PW-10, S. K. Sinha, which also shows cloud over the prosecution case.

It is the settle principal of law that for the conviction of under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, prosecution must establish the demand of bribe, its acceptance and recovery of the same from possession of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of "Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731,wherein, it has been held as under:-

The presumption offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act can only be raised if the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain illegal gratification or valuable thing. The Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of "Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek Vs. State of Gujarat" as reported in (2026) INSC 890 or (2026) LiveLaw (SC) 830. Mere recovery is not sufficient to attract the offence under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

From the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I arrive at irresistible conclusion that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the ocular testimony of complainant PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu in the broader probability and his hidden motive for false implication of the appellant and to enjoy the illegal running of flour mill without payment of any installment of loan amount and also in contravening of banking rules. Moreover, in the trap conducted by C.B.I., also neither PW-6 nor PW-9 who are the material witnesses of the trap has been able to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant. The overall attending circumstance has brought on record clearly indicates that there was malafied motive of the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant and the evidence of record also does not establish the fundamental requirement for proving the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act against the appellant. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law while scrutinizing the evidence available on record led down by both the parties in right perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion.

Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set aside.

This appeal is allowed.

Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.

The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.

Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.