2026:JHHC:20260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal No.22 of 2003 --------- [Against the Judgment of acquittal dated 18.01.2001, passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C Case No.5/85D] --------- State through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Central Bureau of Investigation, Dhanbad. ….. Appellant Versus Satya Narayan Sharma, Assistant, Office of Superintending Engineer (Civil) Bastacolla Area, Area IX, B.C.C.L. Dhanbad. ..... Respondents --------- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR --------- For Appellant/CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Md. Faiyaz Alam, Advocate --------- Order No.26/ Dated: 09 th July, 2026 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, learned counsel for the appellant/ C.B.I and Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.01.2001, passed by the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, in R.C Case No.5/ 85D, whereby and whereunder, the trial court has acquitted all the accused/ respondent for the offence under Sections 161/ 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2)/ 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the complainant, Ashok Kumar Jha, lodged written complaint dated 17.04.1985 with the S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad alleging - 1 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 therein demand of illegal gratification by B.S. Sharma, Superintending Engineer (Civil) and S.N. Sharma, Clerk, both posted in the Office of the General Manager, Area – IX, Bastacola, BCCL for showing favour to the complainant in the matter of passing his two bills amounting to about Rs.12,080/- concerning the repair work of the staff quarters in Kujama Colliery during the period 1981-82. The complaint was verified by Sri Binay Kumar, S.I of Police, CBI, Dhanbad under the orders of the S.P., CBI, Dhanbad in the course of which the allegations brought by the complainant against the accused persons were found to be correct and well founded. Thus, on the basis of the complaint petition, the case was registered under Sections 120B read with Section 161 IPC against the accused persons and a trap-team was constituted and after conducting the trap successfully, both the accused persons were arrested red handed. 4. The CBI after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 120B read with Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1947 against both the accused persons before the court below and the court has taken cognizance on 21.05.1986 and charge has been framed. After conducting the trial, the trial court has acquitted all the accused persons, holding that the prosecution has not been able to establish the case, beyond shadows of all reasonable doubts. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, - 2 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 the appellant-CBI has preferred the present acquittal appeal. 6. The prosecution has examined altogether 16 witnesses. Their testimonies, in short, are as follows :- 7. P.W.-1, Vishnudeo Bhagat, P.W.-2, Sheo Mangal Pandey, P.W.-3 , Rajendra Nath Choudhary, and P.W.-4, Gorang Acharya, are the employees of BCCL, Dhanbad, who have supported the prosecution case as regards preparation and passing etc. of the bills in question of Md. Siraj Ansari and sending the same to the Area Office. 8. P.W.-5, Ram Lagan Singh, is an independent witness, who has claimed to have participated in the trap and witnesses the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. He has deposed in para – 23 of the cross-examination that at the time of trap operation, he was at a distance of ten steps from the door of the office chamber of the accused B.S. Sharma from where the talks held and transaction made in the said office chamber could not be heard and seen. 9. P.W.-6, Ashok Kumar Jha, is the complainant of the case and he has supported the prosecution case. He has proved his complaint petition (Ext.-8). His evidence was not found reliable and hence discarded by the trial court. 10. P.W.-7, Krishan Chandra Thakur, is also an independent witness, who has claimed to have participated in the trap and witnesses the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. He has not supported the prosecution case as according to him neither he went inside the office chamber - 3 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 of accused B. S. Sharma nor did he hear the conversation between the accused persons and the complainant or see the money transactions between them 11. P.W.-8, Ramjee Mal, is the then Director, C.F.S.L., CBI. He has chemically examined the liquid materials of this case sent to him in six bottles and proved his report (Ext.-9). In cross-examination, at Para – 5, he has admitted that during breaking of seal of the sample bottles as well as again packing the same, no witness has signed upon the same. 12. P.W.-9, R.M.P Sinha, is a formal witness, who has proved the sanction order (Ext.-10) 13. P.W.-10, Binay Kumar, is also a formal witness, who has proved the sanction order (Ext.-10) 14. P.W.-11, Sunit Mukherjee, is the then Sub- inspector, CBI, Dhanbad. He claims to have verified the complaint petition of the complainant Ashok Kumar Jha and also taken part in and witnesses the pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings. He has also given evidence in that behalf and also proved his verification report (Ext.-11). 15. P.W.-12, K. N. Singh, is the then General Manager, Project and Planning in the Bastacolla Area. He claims to have gone to the place of occurrence and seen the post- trap proceedings including recovery of bribed money. He has deposed all these facts. 16. P.W.-13, Lakhi Prasad, has been tendered. 17. P.W.-14, Ram Chandra Choudhary, is the Dy.S.P - 4 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 and the then Inspector, CBI, Dhanbad. He has registered the case and organized the pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings. He has proved the F.I.R (Ext.-17), preliminary memorandum (Ext.-18) and memorandum of recovery (Ext.- 19). In cross-examination, he has admitted that transaction, he was standing outside the chamber gate. The trap team caught the accused with the bribe red handed. He has admitted that during raid, the investigating officer (P.W.-16) was no present. Before the red, only one solution was preserved and after trap five solutions were prepared and preserved. He does not remember that how many solutions reacted positively. 18. P.W.-15, J. P. Verma, is the then Dy. S.P., C.B.I., Dhanbad. He also claims to have participated in and witnesses the pre-trap, trap and post-trap proceedings. In chief examination, he has stated that on signal of shadow witness, the trap-team rushed into the chamber of the accused along with the complainant. However, he has not been able to support and corroborate the story of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from the complainant as the deposition the complainant disproves the fact as has not stated anywhere in his evidence that he ever gave any signal either to shadow witness or another. In cross-examination, at para – 6, he has admitted that no transaction of money has been done in his presence. He does not remember that whether the cash or the hands of the accused were washed or not. - 5 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 19. P.W.-16, L. M. Manjhi, is the Inspector, C.B.I., Dhanbad, who took over the charge of investigation of the case on 20.04.1985 and investigated the case. He has also proved forwarding letter (Ext.-14) under which the liquid materials in six bottles were sent by him to the C.F.S.L for chemical examination and report. He has proved the application of P.W.-1 (Ext.-15). He has also proved the registered power of attorney (Ext.-16). 20. The accused has has also examined seven witnesses in support of their defence, who are Bhuneshwar Prasad (D.W.-1), Devendra Singh (D.W.-2), Bhola Kumar (D.W.-3), Allauddin Mian (D.W.-4), Harun Rashid, (D.W.-5) Tez Bahadur Mourya (D.W.-6) and Raj Narayan Singh (D.W.-7). 21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant -C.B.I has assailed the judgment of acquittal on the following grounds :- (i) the evidence of P.Ws.-5, 7 & 14 has been disbelieved by the trial court, as it was not proper as they have occasion to see the incident and they were eye witnesses to the incident. (ii) once there is recovery and that recovery is proved, then the onus shifts upon the accused to prove the fact otherwise. (iii) it was with regard to the contractual work and as such there was a reason for demand and that has also been proved. To substantiate the above argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments of the - 6 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Chandrasha, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3469 and in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731. 22. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has supported the judgment of acquittal stating that :- (i) when the independent witnesses i.e. P.Ws- 5 & 7 and the trap-link witness, P.W.- 14 has been disbelieved by the trial court considering the fact, then the trap itself is in under doubt and as such, order of acquittal is justified. (ii) the six bottles containing liquid materials, out of which, four contained liquid contents of pink colour and two contained liquid contents of milky white, were sent for CFSL examination, but surprisingly, all the six bottles gave positive tests report and that is one of the reasons for disbelieving the prosecution story by the trial court. (iii) referring to the cross-examination of P.Ws.-5 & 7, it has been submitted that they themselves have admitted that they were 10 steps away from the closed door and as such they could neither see anything or hear anything. On the above basis, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial court, is justified and - 7 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 no interference is required by this Court. 23. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of record, it appears that :- (a) during the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent No.1 namely, Bhawani Shanker Sharma, Superintending Engineer Civil, has died and the respondent No.2 namely, Satya Narayan Sharma, Assistant, Office of the Superintending Engineer (Civil), is on death bed, who is alleged to have received money on behalf of the deceased respondent No.1. (b) the alleged incident is of dated 17.04.1985 and the judgment of acquittal has been passed on 18.01.2001 and the respondent No.1 has already died and the present respondent is aged about 80 years and he has to move on stretcher for executing the bond, as directed by this Court. (c) the trial court has evaluated the entire evidence available on record and after evaluating the evidence, the judgment of acquittal has been passed. (d) it is not the case of the appellant that the evidence has not been considered by the trial court. (e) the reason has been assigned by the trial court for disbelieving the evidence of P.Ws.-5, 7 & 14 and reliance has also been placed upon the CFSL report. - 8 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003 2026:JHHC:20260 24. Thus, there is enough area of doubt for acquittal of the respondent and the views taken by the trial court cannot be said to be irrational. 25. In view of above discussions, this Court finds that the judgment of acquittal dated 18.01.2001, passed by the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad, in R.C Case No.5/ 85D, requires no interference. 26. In the result, the acquittal appeal stands dismissed. 27. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 09th July, 2026 Ravi-Chandan/- NAFR Uploaded on 15.07.2026 - 9 - Acq. Appeal No.22 of 2003