True Court CopyTM


Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 403 of 2003

Decided On: 30.08.2018

Appellants: Jai Kumar Jain Vs. Respondent: Union of India

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Vinod Kumar Sinha


Vinod Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.7.2003 passed by Sri Braj Nandan Sahay, the then Special Judge, C.B.I., South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 55/88/R.C. No. 29(A)/88 by which he has convicted the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause.

2. Prosecution case, as appears from the complaint lodged by Triloki Mistry (PW 2) before the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Patna, in short, is that the appellant, who was posted as Deputy Superintendent, E.S.I. Hospital, Phulwarisharif, had demanded Rs. 450/- as gratification for the treatment of his wife, Kaushalya Devi. The aforesaid allegation (Ext. 2) was verified by Sri Bal Krishna Birdi (PW 5), the then Sub-Inspector of Police, C.B.I. and FIR (Ext. 1) was registered, Patna. On 30.8.1988 a trap team was constituted and for that services of two independent witnesses, namely, Ramjee Prasad, Asstt. Grade-I(M) and N.K. Gupta, Asstt. Grade-II (M), both of the regional office, F.C.I., Patna, were requisitioned and the object and purpose for constituting the team were discussed and practical demonstration was given to the witnesses and the complainant to make them familiar with the method of laying trap and also with action and reaction of phenolphthalein powder with solution of sodium carbonate and all the members of the team were introduced with each other and complaint petition was read over to them. Further case is that cash of Rs. 450/-, each of Rs. 50/- denomination, was given by the complainant to the Inspector, who treated the same with phenolphthalein power. The numbers of G.C. notes were written and then the G.C. notes were returned to the complainant with direction to pay the same only when the accused demanded and PW 3 Ramji Prasad was asked to be with the complainant as shadow witness. The trap team proceeded to the place of occurrence and on demand the complainant paid the gratification to the appellant and the appellant kept the notes beneath brief case. Thereafter CBI officials caught hold of him along with the bribe money.

3. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the case ultimately traveled to the file of Sri Brij Nandan Sahay, the then Special Judge, CBI, South Bihar, Patna for trial and disposal.

4. During trial charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was framed and also charge under Section 161 I.P.C. was also framed against the accused appellant.

5. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, they are PW 1 Shyam Kishun Prasad, PW 2 Triloki Mistry, the complainant himself, PW 3 Ramjee Prasad, independent witness and shadow witness, PW 4 Narendra Kumar Gupta, independent witness, PW 5 Bal Krishna Birdi, who verified the allegation, PW 6 Ram Nath Prasad, who proved the sanction order, PW 7 R.S. Yadav, member of trap team and official of CBI, PW 8 Ram Chandra Chaudhary, I.O. of the case and PW 9 Hari Krishan Sharma.

6. Apart from the above ocular evidence, certain documents have also been brought on record by the prosecution, including Ext. 1-FIR and Ext.-1/A-signatures of R.C. Chaudhary, Inspector, on FIR, Ext. 1/B-signature of R.N. Rabi, S.P. on FIR, Ext. 2-written complaint, Ext. 3-seizure memorandum/Post Trap Memorandum, Ext. 4-search list, Ext. 5-search list, Ext. 6 - sanction order, Ext. 7-preliminary memorandum, Exts. 8 to 8/........