Jharkhand High Court
Prakash Saw vs The State Of Jharkhand Through ... on 9 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 540 of 2022
------
Prakash Saw ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance
(A.C.B.) Hazaribagh ... ... Respondent
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
For the A.C.B. : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
--------
Order No. 04: Dated: 9th November, 2022
Learned counsels for both the parties are present.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an I.A. No.
6693 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the appellant with a prayer to
enlarge the appellant on bail during the pending of the instant appeal
which has been admitted for hearing by the order of this Court dated
16.08.2022.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant that the instant appeal has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2022 and order of sentence dated
04.07.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance (A.C.B.),
Hazaribag in Special Vigilance Case No. 28 of 2012 arising out of
Vigilance Ranchi P.S. Case No. 26 of 2012 vide CNR No.
JHHB01004326-2012, whereby and where under the appellant has been
held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13(2) read
with sections 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
accordingly the appellant is convicted therein for the offence
punishable under section 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and a fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand)
and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall further undergo
simple imprisonment of three months for such default, the appellant is
further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of four years and a fine of
Rs. 5000/- (Rupees five thousand) for the offence punishable under
section 13 (2) read with section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine the appellant
shall further undergo simple imprisonment for four months and both
the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the
allegation against the appellant is that he has been caught red-handed
while he has been accepting bribe from the complainant to a sum of
Rs.2000.00-/(Rupees two thousand) for converting the proceedings of
section 144 of Cr.P.C. into the proceedings of section 145 of Cr.P.C. It
has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that it is evident from the deposition of P.W. 1 that the
appellant and the complainant had been in good relationship with
each other and therefore this admitted fact is supporting the defence of
appellant that the complainant used to borrow money from the
appellant and on that day the complainant was returning the
borrowed money taken from the appellant to the appellant and hence
the appellant was apprehended red-handed with a sum of Rs. 2000/-
(Rupees Two Thousand Only) in a trap case which is false and
fabricated as it was not the bribe rather it was the money which was
being returned by the complainant to the appellant as emanating
evident from paras 26-27 of the deposition of P.W. 1 (complainant).
It is further pointed out that the alleged recovery of the seized
article was not produced before the court during the trial when the
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution were examined. Further, it has
been pointed out that the complainant and the verifying officer have
improved their versions during the trial as it appears from the
evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W. 7 whose attention was
drawn from the defence vide para 42, 43 and 52 by which it also
appears that the investigation of the case was faulty because the
concerned authority (SDO) was never been examined by the I.O.
during the course of investigation and, therefore, the entire
prosecution case was vitiated because the allegation, if any ,was that
the accused was taking the bribe on behalf of the SDO who was the
concerned officer to convert the proceedings of section 144 of Cr.P.C.
into the proceedings of section 145 of Cr.P.C. and this appellant was
simply a staff in the office of SDO . Further it has also been pointed out
on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has already remained in
jail for a substantive period of time and he was in the custody for 9
months during the course of the trial and at present he is in the
custody in this case since the date of judgment i.e. 27.06.2022 and he
was all along on bail after spending 9 months in jail during the course
of trial and therefore he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
On the other hand the learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State
through vigilance (A.C.B.) opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
Having taken into consideration the persuasive submissions
advanced on behalf of the appellant under the facts and circumstances
of this case, it is found fair and just to grant the privilege of bail to the
appellant and accordingly the appellant is directed to be enlarged on
bail, during the pendency of this appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge Vigilance
(A.C.B.), Hazaribagh in special Vigilance Case No. 28 of 2012 arising
out of Vigilance Ranchi P.S. Case No. 26 of 2012.
Accordingly, the I.A. No. 6693 of 2022 stands allowed.
Office is directed to call for the original lower court record in this
appeal from the concerned court for hearing the case on merit.
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
MM
