Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ab vs The State Of West Bengal on 13 December, 2021
13.12.2021
CRA 64 of 2003
Court No.39
Item No.8
Banshidhar Singh
Ab
Vs.
The State of West Bengal.
Mr. Binay Kumar Panda,
Ms. Pushpita Saha.
Mr. Prabhas Bhattacharjee.
... For the State.
None appears for the appellant, Banshidhar Singh.
The respondent, the State of West Bengal, is represented by
Mr. Binay Kumar Panda, learned Lawyer.
It appears that despite several administrative notices were
issued to the appellant, neither the appellant nor the learned Lawyer
has turned up before this Court.
What I feel, the appellant is not interested to proceed with the
appeal.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the learned Judge, First Special Court, Burdwan
in Special Case No. 8 of 1998, the appellant, Banshidhar Singh @
B.D. Singh, has preferred the instant appeal.
To put briefly, the prosecution case is as follows:
One Monawar Hossain used to carry on a business of scrap
materials and he had a small shop for his business. On 8th August
1995 in the morning he hired a truck bearing no. WML-956 for the
purpose of sending some scrap materials. While the truck loaded
with scrap materials approached near the railway over-bridge at
Burdwan on the Katwa-Burdwan road, the Railway Protection Force
Inspector Shri B.D. Singh, the appellant herein, intercepted the said
truck and took the driver along with the truck near the barrack by
the side of Burdwan Railway Station. The truck loaded with scrap
materials was intercepted by the appellant. Ultimately, the
complainant moved the Court at Burdwan and he got an order of
release of the said articles. But the appellant refused to hand over
the seized articles to him if he did not pay Rs. 10,000/- as demanded
by him from the complainant. Ultimately, the matter was informed to
the Central Bureau of Investigation. After a trap was laid, the
appellant was caught red-handed and he was produced before the
learned Special Court.
The appellant faced the trial on charges under Sections
7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'said Act'. The learned trial judge on analyzing and
appreciating the evidence on record found the appellant, Banshidhar
Singh @ B.D. Singh, guilty of commission of offence punishable
under Sections 7/13(2) of the said Act and he was sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.
3,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further
period of three months for commission of offence under Section 7 of
the said Act. He was further sentence to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for a period of five years for commission of offence
punishable under Section 13(2) of the said Act and to pay a fine of
Rs. 3,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a
further period of three months. Both the sentences were directed to
run concurrently.
I have minutely read the judgment passed by the learned Trial
Judge. I have gone through the evidence on record. After careful
assessment of evidence on record, I find that the learned Trial Judge
rendered the judgment on proper appreciation of the evidence.
I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment.
As such, the judgment does not call for any interference by this
Court.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed on merits accordingly.
The judgment and the order of conviction and sentence passed
by the learned Judge, First Special Court, Burdwan in Special Case
No. 8 of 1998 is hereby confirmed.
The appellant is directed to surrender before the learned Trial
Judge forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence, if any. If the
appellant fails to surrender before the learned Trial Judge, the
learned Trial Judge is at liberty to pass necessary order including
issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the convict so that
he serves out the remaining part of the sentence, if any.
Send down the Lower Court Records along with the copy of the
judgment to the learned Court below.
(Rabindranath Samanta, J.)
