2026:JHHC:16783 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1127 of 2012 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.2012, passed by learned Special Judge State Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Special Case No. 14 of 1989, corresponding to Patna Vigilance Case No. 10 of 1989] -------- Jagdish Sharan Mishra, son of Late Laljee Sharan Mishra, resident of Village-Sarari, P.O.-Sarari, P.S.-Goria Kothi, District-Siwan (Bihar), at present residing at PHED Colony Buty, P.O. RMCH, P.S.-Sadar Ranchi, District-Ranchi ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand through Vigilance … … Respondent ----- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. -------- JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 01.05.2026 Pronounced on 10/06/2026 1. I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl.P.P. for State. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.11.2012, passed by learned Special Judge State Vigilance, Ranchi, in connection with Special Case No. 14 of 1989, corresponding to Patna Vigilance Case No. 10 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, further R.I. for one year along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2026:JHHC:16783 2 Factual Matrix 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that one Kishun Prasad Verma filed a complaint stating inter alia that he was working as private Plumber in Coal Survey Namkum Road, Ranchi and a map was prepared by the Coal Survey Laboratory, Ranchi for water connection. The said map was signed by the Officer-in-charge, Coal Survey Authority and the complainant also put his signature upon the map in the capacity to work as a Plumber and the said work was also recommended by the officer of the PHED, Swarn Rekha Distribution Department and the technical approval was also granted. It is further alleged that an agreement in this regard has also been executed. The complainant has executed all the work as per contract and for the purpose of payment he needs a certificate to be issued by the J.E. PHED Swarn Rekha Distribution Department Section-1 Sri Jagdish Sharan Mishra (present appellant). The complainant requested the said J.E. for the said certificate then he demanded Rs.500/- as a bribe, otherwise, he will not issue certificate in favor of complainant. It is further alleged that on the basis of the complaint lodged before S.P. Vigilance, he directed the Vigilance Personnel to verify the matter, who after verification found the allegation to be true. Accordingly, verification report was submitted on the basis of which present vigilance case was instituted. Thereafter, the team constituting of thirteen members was formed, which is commonly known as member of Dhawadal team and after following procedure, a raid was conducted in which the accused was caught red handed on 24.02.1989 near about 12:30 hours to 13:00 hours, while demanding and accepting the bribe 2026:JHHC:16783 3 money of Rs.500/- from the complainant and the said amount was also recovered from the possession of the accused. 4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the present appellant. The accused denied from charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether 4 witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Anant Kumar Chaterjee, P.W.-2 Bailisius Toppo, P.W.-3 Kaira Gaur Sora and P.W.-4 Nityanand Singh were examined. Thereafter, as per order passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. other witnesses i.e. C.W.-1 to C.W.-12 were examined as court witnesses by prosecution. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidence has been adduced. Exhibit-1-Signature of P.W.-1 on G.C. note memorandum Exhibit-1/1-Signature of P.W.-1 on search list Exhibit-1/2- Signature of Bailisius Toppo on Dhawadal Paper Exhibit-1/3-Signature of informant on G.C. note memorandum Exhibit-1/4-Signature of P.W.-5 Parmeshwar Ravidas on list of Dhawadal members Exhibit-1/5-Signature of Peter Paul Toppo on G.C. notes memorandum Exhibit-2-Seizure list Exhibit-3-File of 1988-89 W/S to Central Fuel Research Institute Coal Survey Laboratory Exhibit-4-G.C. Note Memorandum Exhibit-4/1-Signatue of J.D.H. Guna on G.C. note memorandum Exhibit-4/2-Signature of P.W.-12 Bhagwan Singh on G.C. notes 2026:JHHC:16783 4 memorandum Exhibit-5-Order of Dhawadal Exhibit-5/1-Signatue of J.D.H. Guna on Dhawadal gathan paper Exhibit-5/2-Signature of P.W.-12 Bhagwan Singh on list of trap team members Exhibit-6-Search list Exhibit-6/1-Signature and endorsement of accused Jagdish Sharan Mishra on seizure list Exhibit-6/2-Seizure list endorsement bearing signature of Peter Paul Toppo Exhibit-6/3-Endoresement in the signature of Anant Kumar Chaterjee Exhibit-7-Seizure list Exhibit-8-Verification report Exhibit-9-Sanction order Exhibit-10-Petition of informant (complaint) Exhibit-11-Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-12-Signature of Maheshwar Pd. Mishra on Dhawadal gathan paper. Exhibit-12/1-Signature of Maheshwar Pd. Mishra on G.C. note memorandum Exhibit-12/2- Signature of Maheshwar Pd. Mishra on seizure list Exhibit-12/3 to 12/7-Signature of Maheshwar Pd. Mishra on each G.C. note (Total Rs.500/-) Exhibit-12/8 to 12/12-Five currency notes denomination of Rs.100/- bearing signature of Peter Paul Toppo 2026:JHHC:16783 5 Exhibit-13-Entire F.S.L. report dated 04.06.1990 Exhibit14-G.C. note memorandum bearing endorsement in the handwriting of Peter Paul Toppo Apart from above, material exhibits are as follows:- Exhibit-I to I/4-Five currency notes of 100 denominations each Exhibit-II-Kurta (Shirt) 6. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. It is further pleaded that appellant was not required to issue any certificate as relied upon by the complainant and he never asked Rs.500/- or any amount for issuing any such certificate for which he was not authorized. No verification of any allegation against him was conducted and in the departmental inquiry nothing was found against the accused. He is thoroughly innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. 7. The learned Trial Court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution arrived at definite conclusion about guilt of the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced him as stated above. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant: - 8. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable in this case because the complainant is a private plumber and not a government servant. The appellant was not bound under law to give any certificate to the complainant and refusal to give certificate as required by the complainant does not come under his 2026:JHHC:16783 6 official work, so Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not applicable at all against the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no iota of evidence at all that the appellant has ever demanded the money from the complainant for giving any certificate to him. Similarly, there is no evidence that the appellant ever accepted Rs.500/- or any other amount as bribe money from the complainant. It is further submitted that the sanction order has not been properly proved, hence, the prosecution of the appellant itself is bad under law. It is further submitted that C.W.-12, Bhagwan Singh and Lakshmi Narayan Singh have allegedly caught hold of the appellant, but C.W.-12, Bhagwan Singh was never turn up for his cross-examination. Therefore, his evidence has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Similarly, Lakshmi Narayan Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore, nothing has been proved by the prosecution that the appellant was caught red handed. Moreover, the allegation is of taking Rs.500/- but Rs.2300/- was also shown to be recovered from the full pant of the appellant, which was not seized in this case and does not find mention in the seizure list. It is further argued that in the present case demand of bribe has not been proved as C.W.-7 does not corroborate the allegation of demand in his examination-in-chief. Similarly, the complainant has also not stated about demand being made by the appellant. (i) As a matter of fact the complainant has taken loan from the appellant and was not returning the same. The appellant started demanding the money from the complainant and just to falsely implicate the appellant, he has filed this case. This fact is also admitted by C.W.-4 (complaint) in his evidence, which has not been properly 2026:JHHC:16783 7 appreciated by the learned Trial Court. (ii) As per the prosecution, two persons were made witness to the seizure, but the name of these two persons has not been mentioned nor they have been examined. (iii) One Sri Das, learned Special Magistrate before whom it is said that the solution which became pink and sealed has not been examined. Sri Das has prepared the seizure list. Therefore, vital piece of evidence has been withheld by prosecution. (iv) As per prosecution, on 20.02.1989, the complainant gave an application to S.P., Vigilance, who entrusted the Inspector of Police, Garbet Hembrum, to verify the matter and after verification he has submitted report upon which formal F.I.R. was drawn by the then Officer-in-charge, but neither the S.P. Vigilance nor verifying officer Garbet Hembrum or the then Officer-in-Charge have been examined in this case to prove the initial facts upon which the prosecution started against the appellant. (v) Since, prosecution has miserably failed to prove any demand of illegal gratification made by the appellant or its acceptance by him, therefore, any alleged recovery becomes immaterial. 9. The appellant is a government servant and there is no adverse report against him even prior to prosecution in this case showing his any criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the reported judgments in (i) K. Shanthamma versus State of Telangana (2022) 4 SCC 574, (ii) N. Vijay Kumar versus State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 3 SCC 687 and (iii) P. Satyanarayana Murthy versus District 2026:JHHC:16783 8 Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2015)10 SCC 152. Submissions on behalf of the State: - 10. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. for State has controverted the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of appellant and submitted that all the above points has already been considered by the learned Trial Court and a reasoned order has been passed. It is further submitted that C.W.-4 and C.W.-7 have categorically proved the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the appellant which has not been rebutted by the appellant in their cross-examination. The prosecution sanction order was never challenged by the appellant, which was properly issued by the competent authority and properly proved by C.W.-3, which is a public document. It is further submitted that the complainant was authorized on the basis of an agreement entered into with the department concerned to perform water connection work. Therefore, offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act was well proved. The appellant has not brought anything on record or even any statement as a defence plea under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he was demanding Rs.500/- from the complainant as he has advanced Rs.500/- as loan to the complainant. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly analyzed, appreciated and scrutinized the evidence available on record both oral as well as documentary. The appellant was caught red handed in the trap with the bribe amount. There is no valid defence of the appellant and nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of witnesses to disbelieve or discard their testimony. Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offences charged against him does not suffer from 2026:JHHC:16783 9 any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed. 11. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 12. The only point for consideration in this appeal is that “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any serious error of law as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant calling for any interference in this appeal?” Analysis, discussions and reasons:- 13. Before adverting to adjudicate the above point, it appears pertinent to take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined during trial. P.W.-1-Anant Kumar Chatterjee has deposed that on 24.02.1989, he was posted as Electrician in Coal Survey Laboratory Samlong, Ranchi. On that day, at about 12:30 P.M., he heard some hulla and came out from the gate and saw that two persons have caught hold of one man and there was crowd of people. He later on, came to know that the persons who have caught hold of a man were C.I.D. personnel and on request of C.I.D. personnel, he signed on a paper, which is marked Exhibit-1. The C.I.D. personnel disclosed him that they have put out currency notes from the pocket of the apprehended person out of which five notes were of Rs.100/- denomination each and from the pocket of full pant Rs.2300/- were also picked out. Thereafter, the recovered Rs.500/- was dipped into the water, which became of red 2026:JHHC:16783 10 colour and from second glass water was sprinkled over pocket of shirt which also became red colour. The hand was also washed of the apprehended person then it also became red colour. He has further submitted that on recovered Rs.500/- (each of Rs.100 denomination) signature of other witnesses were also taken and search and seizure list was prepared and he also identifies his signature as Exhibit-1/1. This witness has failed to identify the accused present behind the dock and could not recollect as to how the recovery of currency notes were made from this person. There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut his aforesaid testimony. P.W.-2 Bailisius Toppo has stated that on 24.02.1989 at about 10:00 A.M., he was present in his office, in the meantime, one Kishun Kumar Verma was brought out in the office of Superintendent of Police and Rs.500/- given to him as bribe total five currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each were produced. Accordingly, G.C. note memorandum was prepared by Deputy S.P. in presence of Special Magistrate and other officers. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on above notes and put in an envelope and sealed which was signed by Special Magistrate, M.P. Mishra and Deputy S.P., P.R. Das and that envelope containing the notes were given to complainant Kishun Kumar Verma to give to the accused when he demands bribe. A raiding party was also constituted namely, Dhawadal and he was also member of that raiding party. He has further deposed that at about 11:00 A.M., he departed from his office for Coal Survey Laboratory, Namkum and reached there about 11:30 A.M. and the raiding party members 2026:JHHC:16783 11 concealed themselves at different nearby places and waiting for giving the bribe money to the accused. In the meantime, two persons riding on a scooter stopped at Coal Survey Laboratory then Kishun Kumar Verma also met them and talked with them, in the meantime, Jagdish Sharan Mishra demanded the bribe money then complainant gave him the envelope containing Rs.500/- which was taken by the accused. After counting the notes he kept in his left pocket of his shirt. In the meantime, Bhagwan Singh and Lakshmi Narayan Singh caught hold of both hands of the accused and all the members of Dhawadal surrounded the accused. Thereafter, in presence of Special Magistrate, the accused identified himself as Kishun Kumar Verma. Thereafter, two local persons who were present in the mob namely, Peter Paul Toppo and Anant Kumar Chaterjee, in their presence Sri G.R. Das, read out the memorandum of G.C. note in presence of both the witnesses who signed on the memorandum. He has further deposed that in personal search of his left pocket of shirt Rs.500/- was recovered which was seized in presence of independent witnesses and number of notes were mentioned in the memorandum. He further states that from the full pant pocket Rs.2900/- were recovered which was disclosed by accused to be his own money. Thereafter, one clean water containing in a glass and Sodium Carbonate liquid was put on the left hand of the accused Jagdish Sharan Mishra on the left hand finger, which became pink, the water was also seized. The said water was also put on pocket of the shirt of the accused, which also became pink colour and shirt was also seized in presence of Special Magistrate, Superintendent of Police and two independent witnesses. All the documents were prepared on the 2026:JHHC:16783 12 spot. The accused was brought to police station. The accused was not present behind the dock, but this witness claims to identify him. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve the above testimony. P.W.-3-Kaira Gaur Sora has been tendered by prosecution and stated nothing about the occurrence. P.W.-4-Nityanand Singh is an Accounts Clerk posted in PHED and one of the witnesses of seizure list prepared by Sri P.R. Das in presence of Deputy S.P. Vigilance Department and identified his signature as Exhibit-2 which also bears the signature of Suresh Prasad Verma, Accounts Officer. He has also produced the file in respect of water connection which is marked as Exhibit-3. In his cross-examination, he admits that this file was not dealt by him. Therefore, he cannot tell about any contents of this file. 14. It appears that after taking evidence of aforesaid witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed but later on, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed. Accordingly, other witnesses have been examined as court witnesses. The testimony of these witnesses is discussed hereunder. C.W.-1-Kairam Kujur is Deputy S.P. Vigilance. According to his evidence in the year 1991, he was posted in Vigilance Investigation Bureau. On 04.05.1991, he took charge of further investigation of this case from Deputy S.P., Sri S. Hembrum. He has submitted charge-sheet against the accused Jagdish Sharan Mishra after receipt of prosecution sanction order from the concerned department. He submitted charge- sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) 2026:JHHC:16783 13 read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. In his cross-examination, he admits that except submission of charge-sheet, he has conducted no investigation in this case. C.W.-2-Braj Nandan Prasad Singh Bikat was posted as Additional S.P., Patna on 24.02.1989, and deputed at Ranchi in Investigation Bureau Office. On that day about 10:30 A.M., he was present in his office, in the meantime, Sri Kishun Prasad Verma produced five currency notes each of Rs.100 denomination and on direction of Superintendent of Police, Sri P.R. Das, Deputy S.P. and other officials and Special Magistrate, Sri M.P. Mishra, G.C. memorandum was prepared putting the number of currency notes on the said memorandum. On the above currency notes Phenolphthalein powder was applied and putting in an envelope, in presence of the Magistrate, was sealed and signed by the officials. He has proved the G.C. note memorandum which is in writing and signature of P.R. Das and also bears the signature of himself along with M.P. Mishra, B.R. Kindi, Ras Hembrum, M. Barla, Sri Bhagwan Singh, Narayan Singh, Nagina Singh and Gursera which is marked as Exhibit-4. He has further stated that the informant was strictly advised to give the G.C. notes to the accused only when he demand bribe from him. The receipt of G.C. note memorandum by the informant is proved as Exhibit-1/2. He has further proved the order of S.P. for Constitution of Dhawadal marked as Exhibit-5. He has further deposed that along with the complainant Bhagwan Singh was deputed as shadow with him who has to signal after taking bribe by the accused. At about 12:00 P.M., they received the signal from Bhagwan Singh then they went towards him 2026:JHHC:16783 14 and saw that Bhagwan Singh and Lakshmi Narayan Singh had caught hold of hand of the accused. Thereafter, Dhawadal members disclosed their identity to the accused. From the public independent witnesses Anant Kumar Chaterjee and Peter Paul Toppo were called to see the recovery of bribe amount. Thereafter, search was conducted on the person of accused and G.C. note was recovered from left pocket of shirt and from the pocket of pant Rs.2300/- (23 currency notes of Rs.100 denomination each) which was disclosed by the accused to be his own money. Thereafter, Sodium Carbonate liquid was prepared and spread on the pocket of shirt which became pink and the colour was sealed in bottle after putting level in presence of witnesses and seizure list was prepared which is marked as Exhibit-6. Thereafter, accused was arrested and brought to police station. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he reached at the place of occurrence after receiving signal, hence, he can’t tell what talks took place between the complainant and the accused. C.W.-3-Bachhu Das has proved the prosecution sanction order which is marked as Exhibit-9. C.W.-4-Kishun Prasad Verma is the complainant. According to his evidence, he obtained a contract in the office of Coal Survey Laboratory for fitting of water pipe connection, the work was sanctioned by PHED Department. He has further deposed that after completion of work, for the payment he was required to obtain a certificate from Junior Engineer, Jagdish Sharan Mishra, for which he initially demanded from him Rs.2000/- but later on agreed for Rs.500/-. This witness was not desiring to pay any bribe money then he lodged a 2026:JHHC:16783 15 complaint before the Vigilance Department and proved his written complaint as Exhibit-10, which was lodged on 20.02.1989. After submission of written complaint, one Hembrum Saheb, made an inquiry on the same day, but office was closed then he along with this witness went to the quarter of Junior Engineer, where also there was lock on the door and it was disclosed by his neighbor that he has gone to the quarter of Rajendra Prasad. They also went there and Jagdish Sharan Mishra was found there. He has further stated that seeing this witness, Jagdish Sharan Mishra straight forward asked, “whether you have brought money? Then this witness replied that he will give Rs.400/- and could not give Rs.500/- then Mishra Ji said, he will not accept less than Rs.500/-.” At that time Hembrum Saheb was also present, Mishra Ji asked as to who is this person then he disclosed pointing Hembrum Saheb that he is his friend. Thereafter, it was fixed that on 24.02.1989 at the work place Rs.500/- as demanded by accused will be given at about 10:00 A.M. Thereafter, on 24.02.1989 at about 10:00 A.M., he went to vigilance office along with Rs.500/- (5 notes of 100 each) those currency notes were spread with powder and thereafter, sealed in an envelope. A memorandum was made of those currency notes and he signed the same. He was directed to give these notes only when the accused demands for bribe. He has further proved that 13 members of Dhawadal were constituted along with a Magistrate. He along with Dhawadal team went to the work place of the accused at Coal Survey Laboratory at about 01:00 P.M., accused Jagdish Sharan Mishra came on scooter, at that time, Bhagwan Singh was with him. It is stated that at the corner of road, he met with accused Mishra Ji, he 2026:JHHC:16783 16 asked money from him and talking with the accused, he gave Rs.500/- to Jagdish Sharan Mishra. After taking the said rupees, he kept the money in left pocket of his shirt then he signaled raising hand on his head as was decided earlier. In the meantime, Dhawadal team, Bhagwan Singh and Lakshmi Narayan Singh caught hold of the accused and further proceedings were conducted in this case. In his cross-examination, this witness states that he has no training for the work of plumber, but he works in private capacity and licence has been granted to him by Chairman of Water Board. He also admits that from the Coal Survey Laboratory, he has got no written order for water pipe connection. He also states that a written work order was received by office of Coal Survey Laboratory. In his cross-examination, he has also stated that under coercion, he put sign on a written document that he has taken Rs.500/- as loan from the accused which he was asking from him. This witness has been cross-examined at length but no material elicited in his cross- examination. C.W.-5-Parmeshwar Ravidas is Deputy S.P. who was posted in Vigilance Department, Ranchi in the month of February, 1989. According, to his evidence on 20.02.1989, the complainant of this case Kishun Prasad Verma presented a written complaint before him. The complaint was given to S.I., Garbet Hembrum for verification in the matter. He submitted the verification report marked as Exhibit-8. After receipt of verification report Patna Vigilance P.S. Case No.10 of 1989 was registered on 22.02.1989. He has proved the formal F.I.R. as Exhibit-11. On 24.02.1989, he was called upon in the chamber of S.P., 2026:JHHC:16783 17 where complainant approached and gave Rs.500/- (five notes of Rs.100/- each) as per order of S.P., G.C. note memorandum was prepared and on the above notes Phenolphthalein powder was spread and put in an envelope and sealed before Special Magistrate, Sri M.P. Mishra. Thereafter, Dhawadal was constituted. He has further proved about the demand of money by the accused and his apprehension and certain seizure from the accused. He has also conducted investigation of this case and recorded statement of witnesses and also obtained relevant documents from Executive Engineer, which were seized and seizure list was prepared by him. He also visited the place of occurrence which is Coal Survey Laboratory situated in front of Coal Survey Laboratory nearby Kachcha Plank, where two mango trees are also standing. He also admits that in the Coal Survey Laboratory Office water pipeline connection was going on at the fag end of completion. He was transferred and handed over the charges of investigation. He further admits that two witnesses namely, Garbet Hembrum and B.R. Kindi have died. He has identified the accused. He further admits that complainant is a licensee of doing plumber work from Nagar Nigam, but he has conducted no investigation at Nagar Nigam and cannot tell about any licence issued in favour of complainant. He also can’t tell whether a private plumber is required to take a licence. He has never asked his licence from the complainant. He further admits that he asked three maps from Executive Engineer, PHED passed by department, but only two maps were furnished to him. He also admits in clear terms that in the course of investigation, he asked with Executive Engineer, Shardendra Narayan, who told that for making payment by the 2026:JHHC:16783 18 department, no certificate is required. He also states in clear terms that upon interrogation with the Executive Engineer, he stated that Jagdish Sharan Mishra was not required to issue any certificate to the plumber for payment of his work done. He has also not investigated as regards what payment was given to complainant Kishun Prasad Verma for his work rather at the place of occurrence, he found some ferrol 3/18" and meter 1.5" which were kept for fitting, these items belong to plumber and not of the PHED department. C.W.-6-Suresh Prasad Verma is Accountant of PHED, Ranchi. According to his evidence on 20.06.1989, vigilance officers came to his office and seized the file in respect of construction work of water connection at Central Coal Laboratories, Namkum. Seizure list was also signed by him. C.W.-7-Sant Hembrum was Deputy S.P., Vigilance Cell at Ranchi. According to his evidence, on 24.02.1989, informant of this case came to his office at about 10:00 A.M. along with Rs.500/- which was meant for giving to accused as bribe. He has proved the constitution of Dhawadal and preparation of G.C. notes by spreading Phenolphthalein powder. He along with Dhawadal also went to place of occurrence and has proved the trap of the accused while taking bribery. C.W.-8-Maheshwar Prasad Mishra is Special Magistrate, Vigilance Department. He was apprised on 22.02.1989 to the person in the team of Dhawadal constituted by S.P., Vigilance then he came to Ranchi on 22.02.1989 and on 24.02.1989 went to the Office of S.P., Vigilance where order in respect of Constitution of Dhawadal was shown to him which was signed by him. He has further corroborated 2026:JHHC:16783 19 the story of giving Rs.500/- as bribe to the accused on his demand and his arrest on the spot and search and seizure etc. C.W.-9-Gopalji Jha is Assistant Scientist F.S.L., Ranchi. He has proved the F.S.L. report as Exhibit-13 in the exhibits extract of Phenolphthalein powder was found. C.W.-10-Peter Paul Toppo, He is simply witness of seizure list of G.C. note memorandum scribed and signed by him. He also saw that one person was apprehended by Dhawadal team from whom bribe money was recovered on his personnel search and seizure. In his cross-examination, he states that when the accused was asked for seized currency notes, he disclosed that notes were of his own. C.W.-11-J.D.H. Guria was posted as Deputy S.P. in Cabinet Vigilance Cell on 24.02.1989 and at about 10:00 A.M., he was present in his office then informant of this case Kishun Kumar Verma came with hypnosis of Rs.100/- and G.C. note memorandum was prepared and the said note was spread with Phenolphthalein powder and keeping in an envelope was given to informant with warning that he will give to the accused only on demand of bribe. As per order of S.P., Dhawadal party was constituted and said notes were given to the accused by the informant and he was apprehended and other procedure as disclosed by previous witness has been reiterated this witness also. C.W.12-Bhagwan Singh was posted as Inspector in Cabinet Vigilance Department, Ranchi. He has also proved that the complainant came with Rs.500/- and G.C. note memorandum was prepared the notes were spread with Phenolphthalein powder and given to informant. 2026:JHHC:16783 20 Accordingly, a trap was conducted and accused was arrested, while taking the bribe money of Rs.500/-. This witness was never produced for cross-examination by defence. 15. From perusal of impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that the learned Trial Court has not considered the full testimony of each witness in the light of materials elicited in their cross-examination rather placing reliance upon documentary evidence, result of trap conducted in this case against the appellant and corroborated from F.S.L. report, nothing has been discussed about the factual aspect of the case which were the genesis of occurrence. 16. From discussion of entire testimony of witnesses as stated above it emerges that the core dispute for lodging this complaint by the complainant, who happens to be a private plumber was entrusted with some work of water pipe connection and ferrules in Coal Survey Laboratory on contract basis. The scheme was approved by State P.H.E.D. Department and technical sanction was also granted. It is evident that complete document of contract for executing the work undertaken by the complainant has not been brought on record. It is also not proved whether the entire work was completed by the complainant or not. It is also admitted by Executive Engineer, Sardendra Narayan that the present appellant was not responsible for issuing any certificate for the payment in respect of work assigned to the complainant in this case. Therefore, under what capacity the complainant approached to the appellant for asking a certificate in respect of work verification certificate has also not been proved beyond doubt. It is more interesting that at the time of trap what conversation 2026:JHHC:16783 21 took place between the complainant and the present appellant has not been proved by any of the witnesses, who were deputed along with the complainant to make a signal when the demand for bribe is raised by the appellant and the money is given by the complainant. In the instant case, only the complainant has pointed the signal and raiding parties surrounded the accused immediately. The specific direction given to the complainant by the authorities of constituting Dhawadal that only on demand of the accused as bribe, the money has to be delivered to him. This very crucial and necessary requirement has not been proved in this case. In this connection, the reported judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in K. Shanthama (supra), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in P. Satyanarayana Murthy versus District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & another (2015) 10 SCC 152. It was held that “the proof of demand of illegal gratification, is the grave men of the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and in absence thereof, the unmistakably the charge therefore, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof de hors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to proof the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under.” 17. In the instant case none of the witnesses of facts including the complainant has been able to state that at the time of trap of the accused 2026:JHHC:16783 22 by the members of Dhawadal, the accused demanded him bribe of Rs.500/- for issuing any certificate (although he was not obliged to issue any certificate of any kind to facilitate the payment for the work completed by the complainant). It is also not proved by him that he gave Rs.500/- containing Phenolphthalein powder to the accused as bribe on his demand. The factum of raid and recovery of money from the pocket of accused has been substantially proved by the prosecution but of no consequence in the factual scenario of the instant case. The complainant has also given a colourable evidence regarding the money demanded by appellant and on one place he also states that he has taken Rs.500/- loan from the appellant which was being asked by him, but later on he improves that a letter was got signed by him forcibly putting under fear with aforesaid contents, but neither he has complained about any such duress put upon him nor he has disclosed as to who were the officers, who put him under fear and obtained such type of letter disowning the demand of bribe. 18. 18. I have given anxious consideration to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and find that the learned Trial Court has committed serious error of law in not considering the evidence of witnesses as a whole rather the gist of evidence favouring the prosecution has been noted down along with documentary evidence and findings has been recorded about guilt of the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment suffers from serious error of law and based beyond the weight of evidence available on record and even non-consideration of the material evidence available on record. 2026:JHHC:16783 23 19. In view of above discussion and reasons, impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by learned Trial Court is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed. 20. Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 21. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated 10/06/2026 Arpit/ N. A. F. R. Uploaded on 11/06/2026