Anjana Prakash, J.@mdashThe Appellant has been convicted u/s 5(2)/5 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 161 I.P.C. and sentenced to a period already 1 year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of which 3 months under the Prevention of Corruption Act and a period of 1 year for Section 161 I.P.C. by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Patna in Special Case No. 31 of 1987 by the judgment dated 22.5.1995.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner who happened to be the Bench Clerk of the court of Assistant Consolidation Officer demanded a bribe of Rs. 50/- from the complainant P.W.4 for supply of a certified copy of a certain document. This was negotiated and brought down to Rs. 25 which was paid on 3.3.1978 to the Appellant and recovered from his possession.
3. During trial the prosecution examined 15 witnesses out of whom P.W.2, 6, 8 and 10 are tendered whereas P.W. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 are members of the raiding party. P.W. 1, 3 and 13 are seizure witnesses whereas P.W. 11 and 15 are formal witnesses. P.W. 4 is the complainant and P.W. 14 is the Investigating Officer.
4. From the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it appears that once complaint was made to the Vigilance Department about demand of illegal gratification by the Appellant the same was verified by P.W.5 on 26.2.1978. He has given a detailed account as to how the illegal gratification amount was reduced to Rs. 25 on negotiation between the Appellant and the complainant P.W. 4 and there is no reason to discard this evidence just because he was also a member of the raiding party.
5. Both P.W. 4 and P.W.5 are very trustworthy also on the point of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Appellant on 3.3.1978. P.W. 7 has corroborated fact that P.W. 6 and 9 were members of the raiding party who arrested the Appellant with the tainted amount in the presence of two independent witnesses namely P.W. 3 and 13.
6. The defence has brought certain documents to show that in fact the Appellant was not in charge of giving certified copies but the documents have not amply demonstrated this fact. Therefore, the evidence of D.W. 1 and 2 do not inspire confidence.
7. In view of the cogent and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the Appellant. However, in view of the petty amount involved in the present case and the fact that the Appellant has remained in custody for about 65 days, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone.
8. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification.
