Jitendra Nath Mukherjee Babu (Died) ... vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 666 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Jitendra Nath Mukherjee Babu (Died) ... vs Union Of India on 18 March, 2026

                                 1




                                                    2026:CGHC:12943




     The date when The date when       The date when the
    the judgment is the judgment is judgment is uploaded on
       reserved       pronounced          the website
                                       Operative          Full
      10.02.2026       18.03.2026          --           18.03.2026



                                                                 AFR


         HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       CRA No. 860 of 2006

1 - Jitendra Nath Mukherjee Babu (Died) Through LRs. (As Per
Honble Court Order Dated- 22-09-2011 and 23-07-2025)

1.1 - Chandna Mukharjee, W/o Jitendra Nath Mukherjee, aged
about 55 Years, R/o Dumurkunda, P.S. - Chirkunda, District-
Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
                                              ... Appellant

                              versus

      Union of India Through CBI Jabalpur (M.P.)
                                                     ... Respondent

For Appellant. - Mr. Leekesh Kumar and Mr. Manish Kumar Chandra, on behalf of Ms. Renu Kochar, Advocate.

For Respondent - Mr. Vaibhav Goverdhan, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

(C.A.V. Judgment)

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Special

Judge (C.B.I.), Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case

No.54/2004 convicting and sentencing the

accused/appellant as under :-

           CONVICTION                        SENTENCE
     Section    7   of    the R.I. for one year and fine of

Prevention of Corruption Rs.5000/-, in default of payment Act. of fine amount, additional R.I. for 04 months.

Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1)(D) R.I. for 01 year with fine of of the Prevention of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment Corruption Act. of fine amount, additional R.I. for 04 months.

All the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the original appellant

expired and his wife, being his legal representative, was

permitted to continue the present appeal.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant, Michael

Masih, was posted as Electrical Fitter Grade-IV at Korea

Colliery under S.E.C.L., Chirimiri Area. He had submitted an

application seeking withdrawal of an advance amount of Rs.

2,50,000/- from his Provident Fund account. At the relevant

time, accused, J. N. Mukherjee (since deceased), was

posted as Personal Manager at West Chirimiri Colliery. The

application of the complainant for sanction of provident fund

advance was required to be processed and approved

through the office of the accused. It was alleged that the

accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- from

the complainant for facilitating and approving the said

advance application. Being aggrieved by the demand of

bribe, the complainant approached the Central Bureau of

Investigation (CBI) and lodged a complaint. Upon receipt of

the complaint, the CBI organized a trap proceeding to

apprehend the accused while accepting the bribe amount.

On 27.02.2004, at the residential premises of the accused,

being Quarter No. 2 situated at Korea Colliery, the accused

allegedly demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.

5,000/- from complainant, Michael Masih, in the presence of

an independent witness, S.S. Kashyap. Immediately

thereafter, the CBI trap team apprehended the accused red-

handed and recovered the bribe amount from his

possession. It was further alleged that in order to screen

himself from legal punishment, the accused caused

disappearance of the original provident fund advance

application submitted by the complainant.

4. After completion of usual investigation, the CBI obtained

prior sanction for prosecuting the accused from the

competent authority, namely the Chairman of Coal India

Limited, being the disciplinary authority of the accused, and

thereafter filed a charge-sheet before this Special Court for

offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(2)

read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, (for short 'the PC Act') and Section 201 of the

Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court framed charges

against the accused/appellant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)

(d) read with section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act., to which he

abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial.

5. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution

examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the

accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. in which he denied the incriminating circumstances

appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded

innocence and false implication. No witness was examined

by the accused/appellant in his defence.

6. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective

parties and considering the material available on record has

convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as

mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential

ingredients of the alleged offences beyond reasonable

doubt. It is contended that the foundational facts necessary

to sustain conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read

with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act have not been

established by cogent and reliable evidence. It is further

submitted that the prosecution has not been able to

substantiate the alleged demand of Rs. 5,000/- by way of

illegal gratification by the appellant from the complainant.

Demand of bribe being sine qua non for conviction under

the aforesaid provisions, its non-proof is fatal to the case of

the prosecution. Learned counsel also contends that the

prosecution has failed to properly obtain and prove the valid

sanction for prosecution of the appellant as required under

law, thereby vitiating the entire trial. It is further argued that

the learned Trial Court erred in holding that the alleged

currency notes amounting to Rs. 5,000/- were seized from

the exclusive possession and with the conscious knowledge

of the appellant. In this regard, attention was invited to

paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 of the deposition of PW-5 Michael

Masih and paragraphs 19 to 22 of the deposition of PW-10

B. Panir Selbum, which, according to the appellant, create

serious doubt about such alleged recovery. It is submitted

that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence

on record in its proper perspective.

8. It is also contended that the prosecution has withheld

material witnesses, namely Arvind Kumar and S.D.

Devasthale, whose non-examination has caused serious

prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel further submits

that there are material contradictions and omissions in the

statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-5

Michael Masih (complainant), PW-4 Upendra Narayan

Singh, PW-7 Ramshanker Tiwari, PW-8 K.C. Sahu, PW-3

Ashok Sahu and PW-10 B. Panir Selbum. In view of such

inconsistencies, no implicit reliance could have been placed

upon their testimonies. It is further argued that the statement

of PW-5, the complainant, has not been corroborated by

independent and reliable evidence on material particulars. In

absence of such corroboration, the conviction recorded by

the learned Trial Court is wholly illegal and unsustainable in

law. Learned counsel also submits that there was no prior

action such as seizure, panchanama, or any official

proceeding initiated by the appellant against the

complainant so as to create any circumstance for coercion

or compulsion for demand of bribe. It is further contended

that no independent witness has been examined by the

prosecution to prove the actual delivery of the alleged bribe

amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The solitary testimony of PW-5

Michael Masih is insufficient to establish payment beyond

reasonable doubt. The appellant's case, as argued, is that

on 27.02.2004 the complainant was eager to get his work

done and himself offered the money, which was refused by

the appellant. However, the learned Trial Court has

erroneously disbelieved this defence and held otherwise.

9. It is further submitted that the alleged phenolphthalein test

has not been duly proved in accordance with law. The pink-

coloured solution was neither marked nor exhibited as a

material article before the Court. The primary evidence,

namely the sealed bottle containing the solution, was not

proved and produced with proper seal and signature, and no

explanation has been offered for such non-production.

Hence, the alleged chemical test remains unproved.

Learned counsel argues that neither the demand nor the

payment of bribe has been proved beyond reasonable

doubt. In such circumstances, the presumption under

Section 4(1) of the P.C. Act cannot be invoked against the

appellant. It is further submitted that mere recovery of

certain currency notes from the premises of the appellant,

without proof of voluntary acceptance pursuant to demand,

is insufficient to raise any statutory presumption. In this

context, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sita Ram v. State of Rajasthan

reported in AIR 1975 SC 1432, Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi

Administration) reported in AIR 1979 SC 1498, Banshi Lal

Yadav v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1981 SC 1235

(1981) 3 SCC 69, P. Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1040 and this

Court judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in CRA

No.294/2009 and other connected appeal [Umesh Kumar

Yadav Vs. Union of India (Neutral Citation No.

2025:CGHC:41830)], wherein it has been held that mere

recovery of money separated from proof of demand and

voluntary acceptance is not sufficient to sustain conviction,

and that before raising statutory presumption, the

prosecution must first prove that the accused accepted

gratification for himself. It is lastly contended that the

learned Trial Court erred in shifting the burden upon the

appellant to disprove the demand of illegal gratification,

whereas in law the initial burden squarely lies upon the

prosecution to establish demand and acceptance by reliable

and independent evidence. These facts cannot be said to

have been proved merely on the basis of circumstantial

evidence and the uncorroborated testimony of the

complainant. Thus, the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/C.B.I. submits that the judgment of conviction

passed by the learned Special Judge is well-reasoned, legal

and based upon proper appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence available on record. It is contended

that the prosecution has successfully established all the

essential ingredients of the offences punishable under

Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of

the P.C. Act beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that

the demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- by the

appellant has been clearly and consistently proved through

the testimony of the complainant (PW-5), which inspires

confidence and remains unshaken on material particulars.

The evidence of the complainant is duly corroborated by the

independent witness present at the time of trap proceedings

as well as by the members of the trap team. Learned

counsel further submits that the acceptance of the bribe

amount by the appellant stands conclusively established.

The appellant was apprehended red-handed immediately

after accepting the tainted currency notes. The recovery of

the said amount from his possession has been proved by

cogent evidence. The phenolphthalein test conducted during

the trap proceedings yielded positive results, thereby

scientifically corroborating the prosecution case regarding

handling of the tainted currency notes by the appellant. It is

contended that minor discrepancies or omissions in the

testimonies of prosecution witnesses are natural and do not

affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The learned

Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in its proper

perspective and has recorded findings after careful scrutiny

of the entire material on record. Learned counsel further

submits that once demand and acceptance of illegal

gratification have been proved, the statutory presumption

under Section 20 of the P.C. Act squarely applies. The

appellant has failed to rebut the said presumption by leading

any reliable defence evidence or by eliciting material

contradictions in cross-examination sufficient to probabilise

his defence. It is argued that the defence plea that the

complainant voluntarily offered money which was refused by

the appellant is an afterthought and is not supported by any

credible evidence. The learned Trial Court has rightly

disbelieved such defence, as the circumstances of the trap

and the recovery of tainted currency notes clearly negate

the said contention. It is submitted that the findings recorded

by the learned Trial Court are based on evidence and do not

suffer from perversity or misappreciation warranting

interference in appeal. Thus, the appeal being devoid of

merit deserves is liable to be dismissed.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

12. It is clear from the record of the learned trial Court that the

learned trial Court framed charges against the

accused/appellant under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with

section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. & after appreciation of oral

and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted

the accused/appellant accordingly.

13. Complainant Michael Masih (PW-5) has stated that on

19.01.2004, he had submitted an application (Ex.P-8) for

CPF loan along with the requisite documents in the office of

the Superintendent, Koriya Colliery. After submitting the loan

application, he approached the accused/appellant to

ascertain the status of his application. However, the

accused allegedly demanded Rs. 5,000/- and stated that no

action would be taken on the application unless the amount

was paid. Thereafter, the witness informed the accused that

he would return once he had arranged the money.

14. He has further stated that on a subsequent occasion, he

went to meet the accused, but the accused was not present

in the office. Later, he met the accused near the Central

Bank, where this witness informed the accused that he had

arranged the money and asked where he should meet him.

The accused then asked whether he had seen his house.

Thereafter, the witness went to the house of the accused.

Prior to this, the witness had already contacted the CBI. The

CBI officials came to his house, where he narrated the

entire incident and conversation regarding demand of bribe.

He has further stated that on 27.02.2004, he submitted a

written complaint (Ex.P-1) to the CBI stating that the

accused had demanded Rs. 5,000/- for processing his CPF

loan application and that he was unwilling to pay the bribe.

15. He also stated that he handed over a copy of his loan

application (Ex.P-8) to Inspector Devsthale of the CBI,

which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P-6). Thereafter,

the CBI officials demonstrated the trap procedure and

prepared the pre-trap memorandum (Ex.P-2) at his house.

The witness further stated that he, along with the CBI

personnel, proceeded on foot towards the house of the

accused. He and one Kashyap went to the accused's

house, knocked the door, and the accused came out. The

accused asked whether he had brought the money, to which

the witness replied in the affirmative. Upon handing over the

amount to the accused, Kashyap gave a pre-arranged

signal to the CBI team. After that, the CBI trap party

immediately entered the house and apprehended the

accused red-handed.

16. He further stated that Inspector Devsthale caught hold of the

left hand of the accused, disclosed his identity as a CBI

Inspector, and informed the accused that he had been

caught while accepting a bribe. The accused, however,

stated that he had not taken any bribe from the complainant

and claimed that the money was repayment of a loan given

to the complainant.

17. In paragraph 16 of his cross-examination, the witness stated

that on 19.01.2004, he had submitted his CPF loan

application to clerk Upendra Kumar in the receipt and

dispatch section, and an acknowledgment was given on

another copy bearing seal and signature. He further stated

that although the application was submitted on 19.01.2004,

the acknowledgment was issued on 20.01.2004, and he did

not submit the application on 20.01.2004.

18. He has also stated that on 22.01.2004, he visited the office

to inquire about the status of his loan application, where

Rama Shankar informed him that the application had been

forwarded to the Personnel Department.

19. In paragraph 17, the witness stated that upon being

informed by clerk Rama Shankar about certain errors in the

Patwari documents, he approached the Patwari on the

same day, got the errors corrected, and resubmitted the

documents in the office on the very same day. He further

stated that before approaching the Patwari, he had met the

accused and informed him about the errors, upon which the

accused instructed him to get the documents corrected from

the Patwari and also asked him to arrange Rs. 5,000/-. In

paragraph 18, the witness admitted that he did not lodge

any complaint with any higher authority regarding the

alleged demand of bribe on 22.01.2004.

20. In paragraph 19, the witness admitted that he had informed

Satpujan Mishra, President, who had accompanied him to

meet the accused. However, he denied the suggestion that

he, along with Satpujan Mishra, had conspired to falsely

implicate the accused in the bribery case.

21. Upendra Narayan Singh (PW-4) is the Senior Clerk posted

in Koriya Colliery at Receipt and Dispatch Section. He has

stated that entry in register (Article 'F') at Sl. No.1665 was

made by him on 20.01.2004, according to which, an

application of complainant Michael Masih of CPF loan was

received. He has also stated that after receiving the said

application, he immediately entered the said application in

the dak-book and sent it to Shri Sahu, Manager. He has also

stated that he does not know where is the original copy of

application whose entry was made in the Article-F. He has

also stated that the photocopy (Ex.P-8) is the copy of

original application which was submitted by complainant

Michael Masih (PW-5). This witness, in para 6 of his cross-

examination, has admitted that there is no entry for

19.01.2004 in the register (Article -'F'), whereas the date

was written. He has denied this suggestion that he made

entry at Sl.No.1666 for 20.01.2004 leaving 4 lines empty

after writing 19.01.2004.

22. Ramashankar Tiwari (PW-7) is the Senior Clerk who at the

relevant time was posted in S.E.C.L. Chirmiri. He has stated

that he look after the work of provident fund and its loan

regarding work of the employees. This witness in para 2 of

his examination-in-chief has explained the mode and

manner in which applications of employees for CPF loan are

being processes and disposed of. He has stated that on

20.01.2004, complainant Michael Masih (PW-5) had

submitted an application (Ex.P-8) for CPF loan of

Rs.2,50,000/-. He has also stated that in the first week of

February, 2004, the complainant had come to him and

inquired about status of his application, on which, he told

him that his application has not come yet. Thereafter, the

complainant went to Personal Officer (accused) and came

back to him and showing enclosed documents with

application asked him whether the enclosed documents are

correct or not. This witness in para 6 has stated that old

application of complainant had not come to him, therefore,

he did not take any action thereon. In para 8, this witness

has admitted that he did not receive any application of

complainant on 19.01.2004, however, he only showed

documents to him. He has also admitted that no application

of complainant dated 20.01.2004 was received by him

through Superintendent Khan. He has also admitted that if

any loan application is received by the Personal Officer, it is

not sent to the Area Manager for approval until the

accompanying documents are rectified.

23. S.S. Kashyap (PW-1) is the Assistant Administrative Officer

who at the relevant time was posted in Life Insurance

Corporation, Chirmiri. He has admitted his signature on

complaint (Ex.P-1) of Michael Masih, preliminary proceeding

(Ex.P-2), memorandum of entire proceeding in the house of

accused (Ex.P-3), spot map (Ex.P-4) and arrest memo of

accused (Ex.P-5). This witness has stated that he went to

the house of accused with complainant Michael Masih and

accused had asked about him then complainant Michael

Masih introduced him as his relative. This witness has

denied this suggestion that complainant forcibly gave money

to the accused.

24. Sanjay Dongaonkar (PW-6) is another witness of trap party.

He has stated that he had gone to the house of accused

with complainant Michael Masih (PW-5) and S.S. Kashyap

(PW-1) as witness. Complainant Michael Masih gave money

to accused in his house and thereafter gestured us then he

along with CBI team entered the house of accused and

seized money from the accused.

25. K.C. Sahu (PW-8) who at the relevant time was posted as

Superintendent Mines/Manager at Koriya Colliery has stated

that he used to endorse all application forms for PF advance

received through the receipt and dispatch section by writing

note in english, 'Forwarded to the Personnel Manager for

necessary action,' and then affixing his signature. At this

stage, when the witness was shown loan application (Ex. P-

8) and questioned, he stated as follows:

';g fdlh vkosnu dh QksVks dkih gS] ftlds Åij nkfgus

dksus ij esjs dk;kZy; ds vkod tkod 'kk[kk dh lhy rFkk fjlhIV uacj vkfn vafdr gSA ;g vkosnu i= dHkh esjs le{k j[kk x;k Fkk ;k ugha ;g eS ugh crk ldrkA ;fn esjs lkeus ;g vkosnu i= izLrqr gksrk] rks eS bl ij vius gkFk ls ilZuy eSustj dks ekdZ djus dk ys[k fy[krkA bl vkosnu i= esa dgh Hkh esjs gkFk dk dksbZ ys[k ugh gS] blfy, eS ;g dg ldrk gwa fd ;g vkosnu esjs le{k dHkh dksbZ fopkj gsrq ugha vk;k FkkA '

26. H.L. Soni (PW-9) is the witness who at the relevant time

was posted as Mines Superintendent/Manager in Koriya

Colliery. He has stated that CBI Officer had summoned him

with documents relating to loan application of complainant

Michael Masih (PW-5). Thereafter, he along with K.C. Sahu

and concerned dealing clerk had gone to CBI Office with

documents. He has also stated that the CBI Officials had

seized concerned documents under Ex.P-9 and obtained his

signature thereon. He has also stated that he attested the

complainant's certified copy of the application which the

complainant submitted to the office on 02.03.2004. He has

also stated that the complainant's previous application was

not available at the office. The dealing clerk took photocopy

of this application and photographs of other documents with

him. The CBI Officer asked him to attest and sign the said

photocopies. So, he signed them immediately, writing

'attested' on 33 documents. His signature is on all the

seized documents.