Chandra Chur Jha vs The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—The appellant Chandra Chur Jha, Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Chakradharpur and one M.M. Banarjee, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force, Chakradharpur were charged u/s 161/120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and were tried in R.C. Case No. 8/86 by the 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner - cum -Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi. By the impugned Judgment dated 04.04.1998, both the accused including the appellant were held guilty u/s 161/120-B of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Trial Court and they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each separately u/s 161/120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as u/s 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) each for the said offences separately and in default to serve Rigorous Imprisonment for six months on each count.

The prosecution case in short is that the C.B.I. Ranchi Office received a complaint against the appellant and the other co-accused who were posted as S.I. - cum - O/C posted at Chakradharpur R.P.F. Post, that they used to extract illegal gratification from Railway employees of their jurisdiction by registering false cases. The allegation were of serious nature and as such were directed to be inquired by Dy. S.P.(C.B.I.) Shri R.K. Bhattacharya.

Sri Bhattacharya alongwith Inspector B.N. Sharma, S.I. Panigrahi and other police officials went to Chakradharpur and on reaching to Chakradharpur, the inquiring team contacted the source and came to know that the last victim of the accused persons was one Sarveshwar Panda who was being coerced to give Rs. 2,000/- by way of illegal gratification for his release from a case which was registered against him u/s 3(a) of the U.P.(R.P) Act. The aforesaid Sarveshwar Panda gave him a written complaint on 13.03.1986 stating the actions of the accused persons and thereby confirming that those accused persons were in habit of accepting illegal money in discharge of their official duties to help such persons.

In the complaint petition, it was alleged that the complainant was falsely implicated in a case for possessing railway wooden rejected sleepers by the appellant and he demanded Rs. 3,000/- from Sarveshwar Panda to release him from the case on 13.01.1986. On 12.03.1986, he again contacted the appellant at his residence and on that day, he demanded Rs. 2,000/-. However, it was finally fixed at Rs. 1,200/- out of which, Rs. 700/- was to be paid next day or positively on 14.03.1986 in his office otherwise, he would submit the chargesheet. It was however alleged that that other co-accused M.M. Banarjee was also talking in the same line.

The Dy. S.P.(C.B.I.) Shri R.K. Bhattacharya being satisfied with the correctness of the allegations, planned a trap to catch the accused persons i.e. the appellant and the other co-accused M.M. Banarjee red handed and accordingly, he directed the complainant Sarveshwar Panda to see him on the next day at P.W. D.I.B. at 7:30 A.M. with the money to be paid in presence of independent witness.

On 14.03.1986, a practical demonstration of the trap was made before the witnesses showing them the effect of the Phenolphaliam Powder which became red which was brought in contract with the solution of Sodium Carbonate and thereafter, the seven currency notes of different numbers were treated withy the said Phenolphaliam Powder and was handed over to the complainant Sarveshwar Panda to hand it over to the appellant and as soon as he accepted the same, the complainant was to raise his right hand as signal, so that the culprit would be caught red handed with the bribe money.

Accordingly, on the following day, at about 9:40 hrs., the complainant Sarveshwar Panda was sent towards RPF Post Chakradharpur, where he met the other co-accused M.M. Banarjee, ASI, RPF, near Bharat Hotel which was fifty yards East of the RPF Post. At that place, the prosecution witnesses came to know that the appellant Chandra Chur Jha was not available at his office but was available at his residential quarter. Thereafter, the other co-accused M.M. Banerjee and the complainant Sarveshwar Panda both went to the office of the RPF Post from where the present appellant was contacted on phone.

According to the prosecution, the appellant Chandra Chur Jha directed the complainant Sarveshwar Panda to handover the bribe money i.e. Rs. 700/- to the co-accused M.M. Bannarjee and then the complainant handed over the money to M.M. Bannarjee who, by accepting the same from his right hand and after counting the currency note, kept the same in a diary kept on a table. Immediately thereafter, the complainant signalled to Shri Bhatacharya and then the witnesses rushed to that place and thereafter they challenged the accused M.M. Banarjee after disclosing his identity and then the tented money amounting to Rs. 700/- in seven currency notes were recovered in presence of the witnesses.

The accused M.M. Banarjee was asked to wash his hand with the solution i.e. the solution of the Sodium Carbonate, which turned pink and thereafter, a memorandum was prepared and the accused M.M. Banarjee was arrested and thereafter, he was produced before the C.B.I. Magistrate.

During trial, altogether twelve witnesses were examined to establish the charge against the accused persons. Learned Special Judge, on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellant and the other co-accused, as stated earlier in the foregoing paragraphs.

In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that admittedly, even according to the prosecution, the bribe money i.e. Rs. 700/- was accepted by the other co-accused namely M.M. Banarjee and the currency notes were recovered from his possession. So far the present appellant is concerned, according to the prosecution also, the allegations against him was that he infact demanded the illegal gratification from the complainant Sarveshwar Panda and on the next following day i.e. the date and time and place where the trap was made, this appellant was not there rather, according to the prosecution, he instructed the other co-accused M.M. Banarjee over telephone to accept the money.

P.W.-1, the complainant, in his evidence in Court has specifically stated that on the date, time and place of occurrence the appellant was not available in the office of RPF Post and then, he was contacted on telephone and then according to P.W.-1, he was directed to handover the money to M.M. Banarjee.

So far as the allegation that the appellant demanded the illegal gratification from the appellant, has not been corroborated by any other evidence. Further, I find that the allegation of the complainant that the appellant directed him to pay the alleged money to M.M. Banarjee, has also not been corroborated by any other evidence available on record. Thus, there is neither any direct or circumstantial evidence and therefore the evidence of P.W.-1 remained uncorroborated. In my view, only on the basis of uncorroborative testimony of P.W.-1, to hold the appellant guilty under the aforesaid charges, would not be safe.

In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the 4th Additional Judicial Commissioner - cum - Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi in R.C. Case No. 8/86 against this appellant is hereby set aside. The appellant is on bail and therefore, he is directed to be discharged from the liability of bail bonds.