2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.101 of 2005 …… [Against the Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 24.12.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-cum-A.D.J. VIII, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.16(A)/87(D)] …… Nand Kishore Roy, S/o Late Ambika Roy, Resident of Shankarpur, P.O. Shankarpur, P.S. Mufasil Munger, District – Munger … Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. C.B.I. … Respondents ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Adv. Mr. Binoy Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Santosh Kr. Shukla, A.P.P. For the C.B.I. : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, Adv. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated - 09.06.2026 By Court:- Heard Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. 2. Instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.12.2004 passed by learned Special Judge, 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 2 C.B.I.-cum-A.D.J. VIII, Dhanbad in R.C. Case No.16(A)/87(D), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months along with fine of Rs.1,000/- for both the offences with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as emerging from the complaint dated 24.09.1987 filed by the complainant Khagen Chandra Gope, is that while serving as an Extra Departmental Mail Carrier at Saraidhella Post Office, he was allegedly subjected to persistent demand of illegal gratification by the accused appellant, Nand Kishore Roy, the then Inspector of Post Office. It is further alleged that the accused had been pressurizing the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 150/- per month for allowing him to continue in service. It is further alleged that on 22.09.1987, the accused called the complainant to his office and directed him to pay the said amount on 24.09.1987 at Saraidhella Post Office, further stating that a portion thereof was to be passed on to the Superintendent of Post Office and that failure to make 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 3 such payment would result in the complainant being removed from service. On the basis of above complaint, RC.16/87(D) was registered for the offences under Section 120-B read with Section 161 of the I.P.C. The prosecution case further proceeds that, pursuant to the complaint, a trap was organized by the C.B.I. on 25.09.1987. A pre-trap memorandum was prepared in the presence of C.B.I. officials, the complainant and two independent witnesses, namely K.K. Sinha and M.E. Dey, wherein demonstration of the phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate test was given. The complainant produced Rs. 150/- comprising currency notes of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/-, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and returned to him with instructions to hand over the same to the accused only upon demand. One of the independent witnesses was deputed as a shadow witness to observe the conversation and transaction. It is alleged that during the trap operation, the accused received the tainted currency notes from the complainant, accepted them with his right hand and kept them in a rexine bag carried by him. Immediately thereafter, the trap team intercepted the accused, disclosed 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 4 their identity and challenged him, whereupon he allegedly admitted receipt of the amount. Subsequent phenolphthalein tests conducted on the fingers of both hands of the accused yielded positive results. The tainted amount was recovered, necessary seizure and recovery memoranda were prepared. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellant which was read over and explained to him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined and several documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution. 6. On the other hand, one oral evidence has been adduced by the defence but no documentary evidence was adduced. 7. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order has been passed which has been assailed in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself towards the 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 5 quantum of sentence. It is submitted that appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months imprisonment out of which, he has already undergone near about two months' custody during the pendency of trial and post-conviction. This was appellants' first offence and the incident was of the year 1987 and now more than three and a half decades have been elapsed. Therefore, sentence passed by the learned Trial Court may be reduced from six months to the imprisonment already undergone. 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 have defended the impugned judgment on merits. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, no serious objection has been raised. 10. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order along with the record of the case in the light of rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 11. It appears that altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against accused. Out of them P.W.1 Anirudh 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 6 Mandal, who is Senior P.A. to Post Master General (P.M.G.) and has proved the sanction order which is marked as Ext.1. P.W.2 Raj Kumar Singh is the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office who has deposed that Shri N.K. Roy, Inspector, was the appointing authority of Extra Departmental Mail Carriers. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that there is not rule of getting the complainant removed from service without contemplating departmental proceeding and without holding domestic enquiry against an employee of the Postal department. P.W.3 Brijbanshi Prasad Singh is an Officiating Accountant No.2, who has proved the Service Book of the accused N.K. Rai which is marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, this witness has deposed that the accused was never suspended prior to this occurrence and this suspension was only because the accused remained in custody for more than 48 hours. P.W.4 K.K. Sinha is a member of trap team and is an L.D.C. in C.M.P.F. Dhanbad. This witness was examined on pre-trap, trap and post trap formalities. 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 7 P.W.5 Malay Kumar Dey is another L.D.C. in C.M.P.F. Office, Dhanbad, who has deposed that the envelope containing alleged sum of money was seized from the bag of the appellant which is marked as Exts.3 and 3/1. He has further deposed that there is no trace of the said bag and the said handbag was not produced in the Court and hence, the said handbag remained unidentified by him. P.W.6 Yogendra Nath Kumar is Office Assistant in the office of Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Dhanbad. This witness has not stated anything regarding the trap and the incident. P.W.7 Khagen Chandra Gope is the complainant in this case. According to his evidence, in the year 1987, he was posted as Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (in short E.D.M.C.) at Sub Post Office, Saraikella and one Sri N.K. Roy (appellant) was posted as Post Inspector, Eastern Area, Dhanbad. He identified the appellant present in the Court. He further stated that N.K. Roy used to demand Rs.150/- each month otherwise he will be removed from the service. He was called by N.K. Roy on 22.09.1987 at his residential office and was further asked to be remain present on 24.09.1987 with the amount of Rs.150/- to give him. 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 8 Thereafter, he went to the office of C.B.I., Dhanbad on 24.09.1987 and gave an application with his signature. He identified the application, his signature on the application which is marked as Ext.7. Thereafter, the officials of C.B.I. came with him for inquiry and after the inquiry, he returned to the office of C.B.I. with C.B.I. officials. Thereafter, he further deposed in detail the procedure followed by the official of C.B.I. to trap the appellant and the appellant was trapped. In his cross-examination, he remains intact and nothing adverse has been obtained by impeaching him. P.W.8 Ajay Kant Sahay is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence, he was posted as Inspector in Dhanbad Branch from 04.08.1987 to 12.07.1988 and on 24.09.1987, Superintendent of Police, CBI, Dhanbad called him and gave an application of the complainant and instructed him for verification. He identified the complaint petition which is already marked as Ext.7. He also identified the indorsement of K.C. Kanoongo on the complaint petition marked as Ext.8. He further stated that as per order of S.P. CBI, Dhanbad, he proceeded for the verification of the complaint with complainant and met N.K. Roy, who, in front 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 9 of this witness asked the money from the complainant. Thereafter, this witness returned to his office and submitted his verification report to the S.P. on 24.09.1987. He identified his report marked of Ext.9. On receipt of this witness verification report, S.P., CBI, Dhanbad directed this witness to register a case against N.K. Poy, Inspector Post Office (appellant) and A.P. Sinha, Sr. Superintendent of Post Office, Dhanbad and a team was constituted to lay a trap for the next day. Thereafter, two witnesses were arranged by him who arrived on 25.09.1987 and complainant also came there. He further explained in detail how the appellant was caught in trap and also explained the procedure followed by him. There appears to be no gaps or laches in the procedure followed by this witness which cast doubt upon this witness. In his cross-examination, there is nothing which help the appellant to create any doubt in the evidence of this witness. 12. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case and the evidence available on record. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, genesis and manner of occurrence under which the offence was committed by appellant, the conviction of the appellant 2026:JHHC:16432 Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.101 of 2005 Page | 10 for the offence under Section 161 of the I.P.C and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. is upheld but so far as sentence is concerned, the incident is of the year 1987 and out of six months' imprisonment, he has already undergone about two months and also paid the fine amount. Therefore, sentence is reduced from six months of R.I. to imprisonment already undergone by him. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above. 15. The appellant is on provisional bail which was confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.03.2005, hence, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. The sureties are also discharged. 16. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. 17. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 09/06/2026 Sachin / NAFR Uploaded On: 15/06/2026