Jharkhand High Court
Brij Bihari Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sanjay Prasad
Bench: Sanjay Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 218 of 2025
Brij Bihari Singh, Aged about 67 years, son of Late Yamuna
Singh, Resident of Village Dalan Chapra, P.O. & P.S-Dokchi,
District-Baliya (U.P). ...... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ....... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
----------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.PP
-----------
I.A. No.2078 of 2025 in Cr. Appeal No.218 of 2025
CAV on:19th June, 2025 Delivered on: 01/07/2025
Perused the letter no.60 dated 28.05.2025 sent by Sri
Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Ranchi by which the Lower Court Records have been
sent.
2. It appears that the explanation furnished by Sri Yogesh
Kumar Singh, learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Ranchi vide letter no.60 dated 28.05.2025 is very casual and
shows negligence and indiscipline as vide order dated
23.04.2025, this appeal was admitted and L.C.R was called for
by fixing the date on 09.05.2025.
3. Call for explanation from Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned
Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi for not tendering
any apology by not sending the record on 09.05.2025 in the light
of the order dated 23.04.2025. The Officer has merely submitted
that he has received the letter on 07.05.2025 and thereafter he
had sent the record on 28.05.2025 and as such, this Court does
not appreciate the conduct of Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Ranchi and he is directed to remain careful
in future.
4. The Registry is directed to call for explanation from Sri
Yogesh Kumar Singh, learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Ranchi for not sending the L.C.R within time and shall place the
explanation before the Undersigned.
5. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated
28.01.2025 and sentence dated 31.01.2025 passed by Sri Yogesh
Kumar Singh, Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.)
Case No.31 of 2014 arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case
No.24 of 2014 by which the appellant-Brij Bihari Singh has
been held guilty for committing the offence punishable under
Section 7 and section 13 (2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I for
five (05) years and to pay the fine of Rs.10,000/- for the charge
under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and R.I for
7 (seven) years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- for the charges
under section 13(2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act.
However, both the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
6. I.A. No.2078 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and for grant of bail to the
appellant, during pendency of the present Criminal Appeal.
7. The case of the Complainant-Informant, in brief, is that the
informant of this case Kaleshwar Mahto got constructed 'Check
Dam' at Basudih Nala at Village-Basudih through JHALCO by
the order of the Government and despite its complete
construction, payment of Rs.21,00,000/- only was made to him
and Rs.4,00,000/- was due and even filling up of its MB book,
his concerned file remained pending before the Assistant
Engineer B.B. Singh for issuance of cheque.
However, despite repeated request of the informant to B.B.
Singh for issuance of the cheque, he demanded cash of
Rs.50,000/ for issuance of the cheque, as he had to give to his
Superior Officer from this amount.
Thereafter written complaint was submitted by the
informant-Kaleshwar Mahto on 23.07.2014 to the
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi, upon it he
endorsed the Inspector Kishore Tirkey to verify and report.
Thereafter the Police Inspector Kishroe Tirkey verified the
above matter of the informant and submitted his report to S.P.
Vigilance Bureau, Ranchi on 24.07.2014, finding the allegation
true only against Brij Bihari Singh, Sub Area Manager,
JHALCO, Ranchi.
On the basis of verification report dated 24.07.2014
submitted by the Police Inspector Kishore Tirkey, the Officer in-
charge of Vigilance was directed by the S.P., Vigilance Bureau,
Ranchi, to institute the case and Inspector Jitendra Dubey was
deputed its Investigator and accordingly, Vigilance P.S. Case
No.24/2014 dated 24.07.2014 was instituted under section
7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, only against
Brij Bihari Singh, Sub Area Manager of JHALCO Office at
Ashok Nagar, Ranchi.
Thereafter on 25.07.2014 the Raiding Party had recovered
Rs.15,000/- from the appellant in presence of the informant and
two independent witnesses.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It
is submitted that the entire allegation levelled against the
appellant in the FIR are false and concocted and the appellant
has committed no offence. It is submitted that it is clear from the
FIR that no bribe was demanded by the appellant from the
informant at the time of releasing Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty
One Lakh) to the complainant-informant. It is submitted that the
informant has developed his case and version time to time as per
his convenience. It is submitted that this is a case of demand of
Rs.50,000/- for bill of Rs.4,00,000/- for completing the work of
'Check Dam' and the allegation is not correct. It is submitted
that independent witness, Khagesh Mahto-P.W-2 was brought
by the informant who was the co-villager and he had not heard
any demand of bribe by the appellant from the informant. It is
submitted that another eye witness Krishn Kumar Verma-P.W-3
has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he had not
supported the prosecution case on the point of recovery of
Rs.15,000/- from the possession of the appellant rather he has
simply stated to have put his signature on some papers brought
by the prosecution side. It is submitted that P.W-9 is one
Jitendra Dubey, who was the member of the raiding party and
who has been made the Investigating Officer (I.O) of this Case
and as such the entire investigation and trial is vitiated and not
sustainable in law.
9. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in:-
(i) (1976) 1 SCC 15 (para 5 and 6)
(ii) (1996) 11 SCC 709 (para 4)
(iii) (2010) 15 SCC 369 (para-8, 9 and 10)
(iv) (2011) 12 SCC 294
10. It is submitted that P.W-4 is Kishore Tirkey, has been
made Verifier of the complaint as has been alleged by the
Informant on 24.07.2014. However, even the Verifier i.e. P.W-
4-Kishore Tirkey admitted that when Rs.1,51,553/- was paid to
the complainant then no money was demanded by the appellant
from the informant.
11. It is further submitted that P.W-2-Khagesh Mahto is not an
independent witness rather he was well acquainted with the
informant and he had admitted during his cross-examination at
para-15 that complainant is his co-villager. It is further
submitted that even P.W-3 was not treated as a shadow witness
by the Vigilance Department rather he was set up by the
informant-P.W-1 Kaleshwar Mahto because the informant had
asked P.W-3-Krishn Kumar Verma to arrive at JHALCO
without informing him anything and he was made to sit in the
office at some place and he had put his signature in the seizure
list and thus he had not signed any pre-trap memorandum.
However, during cross-examination, P.W-3-Krishn Kumar
Verma admitted that there was no recovery of notes during his
presence from the appellant. Thus, P.W-3 has not supported the
recovery of amount of Rs.15,000/- from the appellant.
12. It is further submitted that P.W-4 Kishore Tirkey stated
during his evidence that Constable Pradeep Kumar and Ram
Ekbal Yadav had caught hold of the hands of the appellant while
he was keeping Rs.15,000/- whereas P.W-1 i.e. the informant
namely Kaleshwar Mahto had stated that P.W-4 Kishore Tirkey
had caught the hand of the appellant and thus, the evidence of
P.W-1 i.e. the informant Kaleshwar Mahto and P.W-4- Kishore
Tirkey are contradictory to each other. Even P.W-6-Ram Ekbal
Yadav during evidence has stated that he had caught left hand of
the appellant whereas P.W-4-Kishore Tirkey had caught the
right hand of the appellant. Thus, P.W-6 also contradicts the
evidence of P.W-4 Verifier Kishore Tirkey.
13. It is submitted that P.W-7-Ram Sharan Yadav (Dy. S.P)
stated that two Police Inspectors had caught the hand of the
appellant. Thus, the evidence of P.W-1, P.W-4, P.W-6 and P.W-
7 respectively are contradictory to each other.
14. It is submitted that the place of occurrence is said to be the
room of the appellant and from which it was not possible to
watch the washing of face by the informant and which was the
signal to enable the raiding party to arrive at place of
occurrence. It is submitted that even P.W-9-Jitendra Dubey has
admitted that he was also present at the time of raiding and thus,
the handing over investigation to P.W-9 as the Investigating
Officer of this case is completely perverse and illegal and thus,
the entire trial is vitiated. It is submitted that the appellant was in
custody during trial for some period and thereafter he was taken
into custody on 28.01.2025 and since then he is in jail i.e. for
around five months and hence, the sentence of the appellant may
be suspended and he may be enlarged on bail.
15. On the other hand, learned Spl.PP has opposed the prayer
for bail. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and
sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper. It
is submitted that there is no illegality and perversity in the
impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court
below. It is submitted that the appellant-Brij Bihari Singh was
caught red handed with Rs.15,000/- by the members of raiding
party of A.C.B while taking bribe of Rs.15,000/- from the
Informant-Kaleshwar Mahto. It is submitted that all the
prosecution witnesses have fully supported the occurrence and
the seizure of Rs.15,000/- from the hands of the appellant. It is
submitted that P.W-1-Kaleshwar Mahto is the Informant
whereas P.W-2 is the independent witness and they have fully
supported the allegation and supported the recovery of
Rs.15,000/- from the appellant. It is submitted that P.W-4, P.W-
5, P.W-6 and P.W-7 namely Kishore Tirkey, Ajay Kumar Singh,
Ram Ekbal Yadav and Ram Sharan Yadav respectively have
also supported the prosecution case and recovery of Rs.15,000/-
from the hands of the appellant. It is submitted that P.W-9-
Jitendra Dubey is the I.O of this case and he has also supported
and corroborated the prosecution case and had submitted charge
sheet against the appellant.
16. It is submitted that even if the member of the raiding party
has been made Investigating Officer of this case but on account
of this fact, the investigation and order taking cognizance and
trial will not be vitiated. It is submitted that Section 465 of
Cr.P.C prescribes that the trial shall not be vitiated on account of
any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons,
warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings
before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings.
17. Learned counsel for the State in support of his submission
has relied upon the judgment reported in:-
(i) (1954) 2 SCC 934
(ii) (2009) 11 SCC 690
18. It is further submitted that it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and
Ors. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 11 SCC 690 at
para 8 that even the I.O can be the complainant and hence there
cannot be any defect or illegality in the impugned judgment and
sentence passed by the learned Court below.
19. It is further submitted that the appellant had not taken any
contradiction on the point that the member of raiding party
cannot be made Investigating Officer and no witness has been
confronted on the said point on behalf of the appellant during
trial before the learned Court below and hence in view of the
above, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected.
20. Perused the Lower Court Record and considered the
submission of both the sides.
21. It appears from the F.I.R that the complainant-Kaleshwar
Mahto had submitted written application before the
Superintendent of Police, A.C.B, Ranchi against the appellant
for demanding Rs.50,000/- for clearing his bill of Rs.4,00,000/-
against the appellant-Brij Bihari Singh who was said to be
Additional Regional Manager and was an Assistant Engineer.
He also stated that initially he was given payment of
Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty One Lakhs) for constructing 'Check
Dam' at village Busudih Nala in village Busudih on the basis of
Government Order and approx Rs.4,00,000/- is due and for
which M.B Book was filled and the file has been kept for
preparation of cheque before the Assistant Engineer-Brij Bihari
Singh (i.e. the appellant). He requested several times Brij Bihari
Singh to fill his M.B. Book and for making payment by cheque
but the appellant had demanded Rs.50,000/-.
22. It appears that the allegation of the complainant-Kaleshwar
Mahto was verified by the Inspector-Kishore Tirkey on the order
of the Superintendent of Police, A.C.B, Ranchi and who also
submitted report on 24.07.2014 (Exhibit-1) (entire) before the
Superintendent of Police, ACB that during course of verification
he along with complainant-Kaleshwar Mahto had gone to the
JHALCO office situated at Ashok Nagar where he met the Brij
Bihari Singh and said Brij Bihari Singh had demanded
Rs.50,000/- during his presence for issuing cheque of
Rs.4,00,000/- and the appellant had further asked the informant
to brought Rs.50,000/- by day after tomorrow and upon which
the complainant assured him to pay Rs.15,000/- on day after
tomorrow. However, he could not verify the report regarding the
'Bara Saheb' (i.e. the Superior Officer). But he admitted that a
cheque of Rs.1,51,553/- vide Cheque no.244146 was handed
over to the complainant during his presence. The report of
Verifier is marked as Exhibit-7 (entire).
23. It transpires that the trap was conducted on 25.07.2014 by
the members of the raiding party.
24. Exhibit-4 is the signature of Khagesh Mahto (i.e. P.W-2)
on production-cum-seizure list and Exhibit-5 is signature of
Khagesh Mahto on memo of arrest. Exhibit-8 is list of Trap
Team Members (i.e. pre trap memorandum) dated 24.07.2014.
25. It appears that Exhibit-8 was prepared on the application
submitted by Jitendra Dubey (i.e.P.W-9) who is the Police
Inspector-cum-I.O before the Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance Bureau, Jharkhand for constitution of members of
raiding party.
26. From perusal of Exhibit-8, it reveals that altogether ten
(10) persons have been made the members of raiding party
including one Ajay Kumar Singh (P.W-5), Ram Sharan Yadav
(i.e. P.W-7), Jitendra Dubey (i.e. P.W-9 and I.O), Kishore
Tirkey (P.W.-4), Ram Ekbal Yadav (P.W-6), Pradeep Kumar
(not examined), Mukesh Kumar (not examined), Naresh Kumar
Yadav (not examined), Dharmendra Kumar No.2 (not
examined), Munesh Tiwary (not examined).
27. Thereafter, the raiding party conducted raid in the office of
JHALCO on 25.07.2014 and they had caught the appellant with
Rs.15,000/-.
28. After trap the phenolphthalein test was done and the notes
were seized and tallied from G.C Note Memorandum and
seizure list was prepared.
29. Thereafter the Vigilance Department submitted charge
sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 and
section 13 (2) read with section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act on 19.09.2014 against the appellant. However,
the case remained pending for awaiting sanction order.
Thereafter the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi took
cognizance against the appellant under 7/13(2) r/w section 13(1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 on 21.11.2014.
30. The charges were framed against the appellant on
23.02.2014 under Section 7 and section 13 (2) read with section
13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the learned
Special Judge, Vigilance, Ranchi and the trial begun.
31. During trial the prosecution got examined ten (10)
witnesses as follows:-
(i) P.W-1 is Kalsehwar Mahto i.e. complainant,
(ii) P.W-2 is Khagesh Mahto an independent witness,
(iii) P.W-3 is Krishn Kumar Verma an independent witness,
(iv) P.W-4 is Kishore Tirkey, Trap Team Member,
(v) P.W-5 is Ajay Kumar Singh, Spl. Magistrate,
(vi) P.W-6 is Ram Ekbal Yadav, Trap Team Member,
(vii) P.W-7 is Ram Sharan Yadav, Trap Team Member,
(viii) P.W-8 is Sahdab Ran, Scientific Assistant in SFSL,
Ranchi,
(ix) P.W-9 is Jitendra Dubey, Trap Team Member (i.e. the
I.O)
(x) P.W-10 is Jyotish Kumar Mandal, Junior Engineer in
JHALCO, Jharkhand, Ranchi.
32. The prosecution also got marked several documents
(i.e. Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-12) respectively and the Material
Exhibits (i.e. Material Exhibit-A and B) and the details of which
has been mentioned at paragraph- 5 and 6 of the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Court below.
33. Although it is alleged by the complainant that the
appellant had demanded bribe for himself and for his 'Bara
Babu' (i.e. Superior Officer) but the same has neither verified by
the Verifier nor by the I.O.
34. It also appears that the complainant had himself admitted
for receiving a cheque of Rs.1,51,553/- without taking any
money and this raises suspicion to the prosecution case because
without taking money the cheque of Rs.1,51,553/- was issued to
the complainant.
35. It appears from the Lower Court Record that the appellant
was remanded in this case on 26.07.2014 before the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Ranchi and he was released on bail
on 30.03.2015 (i.e. for around 8 months) in the light of order
dated 27.03.2015 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand.
36. It appears from the perusal of evidence of P.W-1 (i.e. the
informant) that the appellant had directed the Head Clerk to
hand over cheque of Rs.1,51,553/- to the complainant-
informant. Although P.W-1 admitted that he has read only up to
5-6 class but the prosecution got marked M.B Book as Material
Exhibit-II and Cheque Book as Material Exhibit-III and all
papers of informant as Material Exhibit-IV.
37. However, during cross-examination, he admitted in para-8
to be not aware of reading and writing and he can only put his
signature.
He also showed ignorance that Gangadhar Mahto was
Junior Engineer who used to prepare the bill and had shown
anger at the time of his deposition and the demeanor of the
witness was recorded by the learned Trial Court. He admitted
that an agreement was entered into between him and the
appellant-Brij Bihari Singh and photo copy of the said
agreement has been marked as Exhibit-A (with objection).
On being shown Exhibit-B (i.e. application of the
informant) he identified his signature which was marked as
Exhibit-B (with objection). He has denied the suggestion for
receiving Rs.23,29,851/- from the JHALCO. He also showed
ignorance that in this scheme Gangadhar Mahto, Junior
Engineer and R.P Roy, Area Manager had also worked with the
appellant Brij Bihari Singh (who was Sub Area Manager).
38. P.W-1 admitted in para 32 and 33 that Khagesh Mahto-
P.W-2 is his co-villager and Krishn Kumar-P.W-3 is known to
him for last 2-3 years. He also admitted to have not gone to
office of JHALCO on 24.07.2014 (i.e. the date of verification of
allegation) in para 36 of his cross-examination. But, later on, he
admitted in para 39 and 41 that on 24.07.2014 he alone had gone
to Vigilance office and both the witnesses i.e. P.W-2 Khagesh
Mahto and P.W-3-Krishn Kumar had not gone there. He
admitted in para-59 that on the direction of the appellant-Brij
Bihari Singh, the Head Clerk had given him cheque of
Rs.1,51,553/- on 23.07.2014. He himself shown ignorance in
para 67 to be not aware about the amount of the bill submitted
by him in the department.
Therefore, the evidence of P.W-1 is inconsistent at several
places.
39. P.W-2 is Khagesh Mahto who was brought by the
informant on the date of occurrence and made witness of the
seizure list of the notes said to be recovered from the appellant.
During cross-examination, he admitted in para-15 that he
and the informant-Kaleshwar Mahto belong to the same village
and they are co-villager. He also admitted that he had never
received any work from JHALCO office till 25.07.2014. He had
also not gone to Vigilance office on 25.07.2014 and he also does
not know the name of Vigilance people.
Thus, it would appear that P.W-2 is not an independent
witness rather he is co-villager of the informant-Kaleshwar
Mahto and P.W-2-Khagesh Mahto is an interested witness and
who was brought by the informant for own gain.
40. So far as P.W-3-Krishn Kumar Verma is concerned he
admitted his signature on the seizure list of recovered G.C.
Notes but he was declared hostile by the prosecution. He also
admitted that informant-Kaleshwar Mahto had asked him to
arrive in the office of ACB and thereafter he was directed to sign
on some papers in the office and thereafter he had put his
signature. He has flatly denied regarding recovery of money
from the possession of the appellant during his presence.
41. During further cross-examination, P.W-3 clearly stated
that neither any article nor any amount was received from any
person during his presence. He had put his signature on the
papers on the direction of Vigilance people. He is not aware of
the contents of the seizure list or upon the papers on which he
had put his signature. He is not aware as to from where
Rs.15,000/- was brought. On being shown, the appellant during
trial, the witness P.W-3 declined to identify him. He also
admitted that informant-Kaleshwar Mahto is resident of his
nearby village and he is in visiting terms with him and he is his
old friend and on the instruction of informant, he came to
Ranchi in the office of Vigilance Bureau.
Therefore, P.W-3 has not supported the case against he
appellant and he merely put his signature on seizure list but has
denied its contents.
42. P.W-4 is the Verifier and he claimed to have verified the
allegation with the informant on 23.07.2014 at around 2.00 p.m
and stated that the appellant had demanded Rs.50,000/- from the
informant. However, he also admitted that appellant-Brij Bihari
Singh had asked the Assistant Head Clerk to hand over the
cheque of Rs.1,51,553/- to the informant and thereafter the
informant is said to have stated before him for giving
Rs.15,000/- to the appellant. He also admitted himself to be
member of raiding party and on 25.07.2014 he along with other
members of Vigilance Bureau arrived at JHALCO office and
members of the raiding party had apprehended the accused
appellant and Constable-Pradip Kumar Singh and Ram Ekbal
Yadav had caught hold of the appellant. Thereafter P.W-2-
Khagesh Mahto and P.W-3-Krishn Kumar Verma were called
and made as the witness in the seizure list.
43. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not put
his signature on any paper at the place of occurrence and he had
not searched the appellant. He had not recovered the MB Book,
Cheque and other papers. He also admitted that there is a dense
population near the place of occurrence but no local person was
made witness in the seizure list.
Thus, P.W-4 is an interested witness.
44. P.W-5 is Ajay Kumar Singh, who was the Executive
Magistrate and stated during his evidence that two police
personnels had caught hold of the hands of the appellant but he
had not taken the name of those police personnels.
Thus, P.W-5 is a formal witness on the point of search.
45. P.W-6 is Ram Ekbal Yadav who was posted as the Police
Inspector in Vigilance Department and he was also a member of
the raiding team. However, he stated that on the signal of the
Verifier Kishore Tirkey-P.W-4, he went inside the office and
had caught the left hand of the appellant whereas right hand of
the appellant was caught by the Inspector Kishore Tirkey-
P.W-4.
Thus, the evidence of P.W-5 is contradicted from the
evidence of P.W-4 who had merely stated to have seen the
appellant apprehended by two police personnels Ram Ekbal
Yadav and Pradip Kumar.
46. P.W-8 is Scientific Assistant who has proved the report of
Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
47. P.W-9 is Jitendra Dubey who was member of the raiding
team of the ACB and later on made an Investigating Officer and
has supported the prosecution case.
However, during cross-examination, he himself admitted
that he was a member of raiding team and he was also the
Investigating Officer of this case and all the proceedings of trap
was conducted by his direction. He further admitted that
working employee or any local person were not made witness in
the seizure list. He had not even seized any paper relating to
construction of 'Check Dam' during investigation. He admitted
that concerned payment was made to the Committee for
constructing Check Dam but he could not say the name of
person who was holding the Account and he also could not say
that payment was made to the Secretary or President of the said
Committee.
48. Thus, from the evident of P.W-9, it would appear that he
had entirely supervise Pre-Trap procedure and also prepared the
Post-Trap Memorandum.
Thus, the investigation of P.W-9 as an Investigating
Officer appears to be contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in (1976) 1 SCC 15
has held that the complainant cannot be the Investigating
Officer.
50. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Rajasthan reported in (1976) 1
SCC 15 at para-5 and 6 as follows:-
"Para-5:- Now, ordinarily this Court does not interfere
with concurrent findings of fact reached by the trial court
and the High Court on an appreciation of the evidence.
But this is one of those rare and exceptional cases where
we find that several important circumstances have not
been taken into account by the trial court and the High
Court and that has resulted in serious miscarriage of
justice calling for interference from this Court. We may
first refer to a rather disturbing feature of this case. It is
indeed such an unusual feature that it is quite surprising
that it should have escaped the notice of the trial court
and the High Court. Head Constable Ram Singh was the
person to whom the offer of bribe was alleged to have
been made by the appellant and he was the informant or
complainant who lodged the first information report for
taking action against the appellant. It is difficult to
understand how in these circumstances Head Constable
Ram Singh could undertake investigation of the case.
How could the complainant himself be the investigator?
In fact, Head Constable Ram Singh, being an officer
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, was
not authorised to investigate the case but we do not
attach any importance to that fact, as that may not affect
the validity of the conviction. The infirmity which we are
pointing out is not an infirmity arising from investigation
by an officer not authorised to do so, but an infirmity
arising from investigation by a Head Constable who was
himself the person to whom the bribe was alleged to have
been offered and who lodged the first information report
as informant or complainant. This is an infirmity which is
bound to reflect on the credibility of the prosecution case.
Para-6:- Then again, it may be noted that the entire case
of the prosecution rests solely on the testimony of Head
Constable Ram Singh and four other police constables.
There is not a single independent witness to depose to the
offer of bribe by the appellant. The bundle of currency
notes of Rs 510 was, according to the prosecution, seized
by Head Constable Ram Singh under a seizure memo Ex.
P-1 but the only persons who signed as panch witnesses
to this seizure were Head Constable Ram Singh and his
subordinate police constables. Head Constable Ram
Singh did not make any effort to get independent
respectable witnesses in whose presence the seizure could
be made. The time when the seizure was made was,
according to the prosecution, a little after 5 a.m. in the
morning. Head Constable Ram Singh could have easily
sent one of the four police constables accompanying him
to a nearby village in order to get some independent
respectable witnesses. If, for any reason that was not
possible, he could have taken the appellant and Ram Raj
together with the cart to the police station and there,
made a seizure memo in the presence of independent
respectable panch witnesses. In fact, according to the
statement made by the appellant in his examination under
Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ramji
Lal, Om Prakash and two other persons of Village Bilothi
were present when the incident took place and any two of
them could have been asked to witness the seizure memo.
The prosecution case, of course, was that none of these
four persons happened to be there at the time of the
incident, but at least, so far as two persons by the name of
Lallu Ram and Kamal Singh are concerned, there is no
doubt that they arrived on the scene and witnessed the
incident. The judgment of the Court of the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Bharatpur, acquitting the appellant of the
offence under Section 7 read with Section 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in connection with
transport of the aforesaid six bags of gram, shows that in
that case, the prosecution examined Lallu Ram and
Kamal Singh as witnesses who were present at the time of
the arrest of the appellant. Then, it is inexplicable as to
why seizure memo was not prepared in the presence of
Lallu Ram and Kamal Singh and their signatures were
not obtained on the seizure memo. They were important
respectable witnesses wholly unconnected with the
appellant and if the bundle of currency notes of Rs 510
was seized in the manner alleged by the prosecution, they
could have furnished the most credible piece of evidence.
Moreover, it may be noticed that the seizure memo in
connection with the bundle of currency notes of Rs 510
does not state the circumstances in which it came to be
seized. There is no reference to the conversation which is
supposed to have taken place between the appellant and
Head Constable Ram Singh in connection with the offer
of bribe. The whole episode seems to be shrouded in
secrecy and there is nothing but the evidence of police
constables to support it. How can such an episode be
believed? Can it be said to be free from reasonable
doubt?"
51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in the case
of Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996) 11
SCC 709 15 that the officer who had arrested the accused
should not have proceed with the investigation of this case and
should not be made I.O. The above judgment has been followed
in the case of State By Inspector of Police, Narcotic
Intelligence Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu vs. Rajangam
reported in (2010) 15 SCC 369.
52. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (1996) 11
SCC 709 at para-4 as follows:-
"Para-4:- After considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, it appears to us that there is discrepancy in
the depositions of PWs 2 and 3 and in the absence of any
independent corroboration such discrepancy does not
inspire confidence about the reliability of the prosecution
case. We have also noted another disturbing feature in
this case. PW 3, Siri Chand, Head Constable arrested the
accused and on search being conducted by him a pistol
and the cartridges were recovered from the accused. It
was on his complaint a formal first information report
was lodged and the case was initiated. He being
complainant should not have proceeded with the
investigation of the case. But it appears to us that he was
not only the complainant in the case but he carried on
with the investigation and examined witnesses under
Section 161 CrPC. Such practice, to say the least, should
not be resorted to so that there may not be any occasion
to suspect fair and impartial investigation."
53. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State By Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence
Bureau, Madurai, Tamil Nadu vs. Rajangam reported in
(2010) 15 SCC 369 at para nos.8, 9 and 10 as follows:-
"Para-8:- The short question which falls for
consideration of this Court is: whether PW 6 who
registered the crime could have investigated the case or
an independent officer ought to have investigated the
case?
Para-9:- The learned counsel appearing for the accused
submitted that the controversy involved in this case is no
longer res integra. In Megha Singh v. State of
Haryana [(1996) 11 SCC 709 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 267] ,
this Court has taken a categorical view that the officer
who arrested the accused should not have proceeded with
the investigation of the case. The relevant paragraph
reads as under: (SCC p. 711, para 4)
"4. ... We have also noted another disturbing
feature in this case. PW 3, Siri Chand, Head
Constable arrested the accused and on search being
conducted by him a pistol and the cartridges were
recovered from the accused. It was on his complaint a
formal first information report was lodged and the
case was initiated. He being complainant should not
have proceeded with the investigation of the case. But
it appears to us that he was not only the complainant
in the case but he carried on with the investigation
and examined witnesses under Section 161 CrPC.
Such practice, to say the least, should not be resorted
to so that there may not be any occasion to suspect
fair and impartial investigation."
Para-10:- The ratio of Megha case [(1996) 11 SCC 709 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 267] has been followed by other cases.
In another case in Balasundaran v. State [(1999) 113
ELT 785 (Mad)] , in para 16, the Madras High Court
took the same view. The relevant portion reads as under:
(ELT p. 790, para 16)
"16. Learned counsel for the appellants also stated
that PW 5 being the Inspector of Police who was
present at the time of search and he was the
investigating officer and as such it is fatal to the case
of the prosecution. PW 5, according to the
prosecution, was present with PWs 3 and 4 at the time
of search. In fact, PW 5 alone took up investigation in
the case and he had examined the witnesses. No doubt
the successor to PW 5 alone had filed the charge-
sheet. But there is no material to show that he had
examined any other witness. It therefore follows that
PW 5 was the person who really investigated the
case. PW 5 was the person who had searched the
appellants in question and he being the investigation
officer, certainly it is not proper and correct. The
investigation ought to have been done by any other
investigating agency. On this score also, the
investigation is bound to suffer and as such the entire
proceedings will be vitiated."
54. It is evident that P.W-9-Jitendra Dubey who is the I.O of
this case, was earlier a member of Trap Team and who had also
arrested the appellant and who had got constituted the pre-trap
memorandum dated 24.07.2014 vide Exhibit-8.
55. Considering the fact that P.W-3-Krishn Kumar Verma has
been declared hostile by the prosecution and P.W-2 namely
Khagesh Mahto is not the independent witness rather he is an
interested witness as he happens to be a co-villager of the
complainant-Kaleshwar Mahto and Jitendra Dubey (i.e. P.W-9)
who entirely supervised the Trap and was also a member of the
Trap Team, this Court is inclined to suspend the sentence of the
appellant.
56. In view of the discussions made above and in view of the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the appellant-Brij Bihari Singh is
directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs.15,000/- (Rs.Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each, to the satisfaction of Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh,
learned Special Judge, ACB, Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.) Case
No.31 of 2014 arising out of Ranchi Vigilance P.S. Case No.24 of
2014, subject to the condition that one of the bailors must be own
relative.
57. Thus, I.A. No.2078 of 2025 is allowed and stands disposed
of.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.)
Saket/-
