BILOKAN BARA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND THR.C.B.I
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:26309
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1364 of 2004
---------
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.07.2004
passed by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 16A of 2002
(R).]
---------
Bilokan Bara, Son of Shri Pooka Bara, Resident of behind S.S. High School,
Garhatoli, P.S.- Simdega, District- Simdega, (Jharkhand) at present
Manager, Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda, P.S.- Bano, Dist.- Simdega,
Jharkhand. ……Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through C.B.I. …. Respondent
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State-CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate
-----------
PRESENT
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
-----------
th
CAV On: 10 June, 2026 Pronounced On: 31/08/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel
for the State-CBI.
2. Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of
conviction and sentence dated 24.07.2004 passed by the learned Special
Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 16A of 2002 (R), whereby and
whereunder, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the
offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and directed to undergo R.I. for 2 years alongwith the
fine of Rs. 10,000/-with default stipulation for the offence under Section
7 of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half
(2 ½ ) years alongwith the fine of Rs. 15,000/- with default stipulation
for the offence under Section13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.
2026:JHHC:26309
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the present
appellant, the then Manager at Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch
had advanced loan of Rs. 25,000/- in the month of March, 2002 for
running a flour mill to one Patras Kundulna, to which the complainant
stood as guarantor. It is alleged that since Patras Kandulna was not
running flour mill properly. In the month of May, 2002, Patras
Kandulna showed inability in running the flour mill business, hence, the
complainant sought permission from Patras Kandulna to run the said
flour mill. It is alleged that on 29.11.2002 at about 6:00 P.M., the
Manager of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch, namely Bilokan
Bara (present appellant) came to the house of the complainant and
demanded Rs. 3,000/- as illegal gratification by 07.12.2002, otherwise,
he would lodge false case against him. It is further alleged that the
complainant had made payment of installment of Rs. 3,000/- on
30.11.2002 in spite of that, he was asked to deposit Rs. 3,000/- by
07.12.2002. The complainant was not inclined to pay bribe, as such, he
reported the matter to S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi for taking action against the
accused. The allegation was verified and found to be true and genuine.
After enquiry, F.I.R. was accordingly registered and thereafter trap was
led by C.B.I. team. After completing all the formalities of trap, the
accused was caught red handed taking bribe of Rs. 3,000/- from the
complainant/informant in presence of independent witnesses on
04.12.2002. After chemical examination of the hands of the accused and
formalities of trap, the memorandum of recovery-cum-seizure was
prepared and the accused was remanded to jail custody.
2 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
4. On the basis of above, an F.I.R. being Crime No. RC 16(A) of 2002
(R) was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 7 of
the P.C. Act, 1988.
5. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted
against the present appellant for the offence under Sections 7 & 13(2)
r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. The sanction for prosecution was also
granted by the Competent Authority. Accordingly, cognizance on the
aforesaid offences were taken.
6. The appellant denied from the charges levelled against him and
claimed to be tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution apart from following documentary evidences:
I. Exhibit-1 : Sanction order.
II. Exhibit-2 to 2/3 : Signature of witness Anilson Lakra in application
of Patras Munda.
III. Exhibit- 2/4 : Signature of Bilokan Bara on application for loan of
Patras Munda.
IV. Exhibit-2/5 : Signature of witness Premanand Barla on bottle
containing demonstration work (Ext.-I).
V. Exhibit-2/6 : Signature of witness Premanand Barla on envelope
containing tainted piece of paper (Ext.-II).
VI. Exhibit-2/7: Signature of witness Premanand Barla on envelope
containing phenolphthalein powder (Ext.-III).
VII. Exhibit-2/8 to 2/12 : Signature of witness Premanand Barla on 5
pages of pre-trap memorandum.
3 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
VIII. Exhibit-2/13 : Signature of witness Premanand Barla on bottle
containg R. H. work Ext.-IV.
IX. Exhibit-2/14 : Signature of witness Premanand Barla on bottle
containing L.H. Work Ext.-V.
X. Exhibit-2/15 : Signature of witness Premanand Barla on envelope
containing Trap money.
XI. Exhibit-2/16 to 2/26: Signature of witness Premanand Barla on
memorandum of recovery in eleven pages.
XII. Exhibit-2/27 to 2/30 : Signature of witness Deo Prasad Sahu on
application for loan as guarantor.
XIII. Exhibit-2/31 to 2/61: Signature of Patras Kandulna on loan
application (total 31 pages).
XIV. Exhibit-2/62 : Signature of Deo Prasad Sahu on bottle Ext.-I.
XV. Exhibit-2/63 : Signature of witness Deo Prasad Sahu on envelope
Ext.-II.
XVI. Exhibit-2/64 : Signature of Deo Prasad Sahu on envelope Ext.-III.
XVII. Exhibit-2/65 : Signature of Deo Prasad Sahu on bottle Ext.-IV.
XVIII. Exhibit-2/66 : Signature of Deo Prasad Sahu on bottle Ext.-V.
XIX. Exhibit-2/67: Signature of Deo Prasad Sahu on envelope Ext.-VI.
XX. Exhibit-2/68 to 78: Signature of Deo Prasad Sahu on eleven pages
of memo of recovery.
XXI. Exhibit-2/79 to 2/81 : Signature of B.C. Chourasia on three letters.
XXII. Exhibit-2/82 : Signature of witness Lakho Tirky on bottle (Ext.-I).
XXIII. Exhibit-2/83 & 2/84 : Signature of witness L. Tirky on two
envelopes (Ext.-II & III)
4 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
XXIV. Exhibit-2/85 to 2/89: Signature of witness L. Tirky on five pages of
pre-trap memorandum
XXV. Exhibit-2/90: Signature of witness L. Tirky on bottle Ext-IV
XXVI. Exhibit-2/91: Signature of witness L. Tirky on bottle Ext.-V.
XXVII. Exhibit-2/92: Signature of witness L. Tirky on envelope Ext.-VI
XXVIII. Exhibit-2/93 to 2/103 : Signature of witness L. Tirky on eleven
pages of memorandum of recovery.
XXIX. Exhibit-2/104 : Signature of witness S. K. Sinha on envelope Ext.-
III.
XXX. Exhibit- 2/105 & 2/106: Signature of S.K. Sinha on bottle Ext.-I &
II.
XXXI. Exhibit- 2/107: Signature of S.K. Sinha on bottle.
XXXII. Exhibit-2/108: Signature of witness S. K. Sinha on envelope Ext.-
VI.
XXXIII. Exhibit-2/109: Signature of witness S. K. Sinha on envelope Ext.-
VI.
XXXIV. Exhibit-3: Annexure-I with the application for loan of Patras
Munda.
XXXV. Exhibit-4: Passbook in the name of Patras Munda of Ranchi
Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch.
XXXVI. Exhibit-5: Endorsement & signature of Bilokan Bara on memo of
recovery.
XXXVII. Exhibit-5A: Complaint petition of Deo Prasad Sahu dated
03.12.2002.
XXXVIII. Exhibit-6: Bank receipt for deposit of Rs. 3,000/- on 30.11.2002.
XXXIX. Exhibit-7: Report of C.F.S.L.
5 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
XL. Exhibit-8: Forwarding letter.
XLI. Exhibit-9: Application form for loan (marked-x).
XLII. Exhibit-10: Verification report.
XLIII. Exhibit-11: Endorsement on verification report.
XLIV. Exhibit-12: formal F.I.R.
XLV. Exhibit-13: Pre-trap memorandum.
XLVI. Exhibit-14: Memorandum of recovery.
XLVII. Exhibit-15: Seizure memo dated 04.12.2002.
XLVIII. Exhibit-15/1: Seizure memo dated 10.12.2002.
XLIX. Exhibit-I: Bottle containing demonstration work.
L. Exhibit-II: Envelope containing piece of paper.
LI. Exhibit-III: Envelope containing phenolphthalein powder.
LII. Exhibit-IV: Bottle containing R.H. work of the accused.
LIII. Exhibit-V: Bottle containing L.H. work of the accused.
LIV. Exhibit-VI: Envelope containing trap money.
LV. Exhibit-VII to VII/29 : Tainted G.C. Notes of 100 denominations of
30 pcs. Rs. 3,000/-.
LVI. Mark-X for identification: Application of Patras Munda for loan in
21 sheets.
8. The defence has also examined two witnesses, namely, DW-1Braj
Mohan Prasad and DW-2 Ved Prakash apart from following
documentary evidences:-
I. Ext.-A : Document (agreement paper for loan).
II. Ext.-B: Entry in passbook of Patras Kandulna on acc. no. 53.
III. Ext.-C: Agreement paper for loan.
IV. Ext.-D: Agreement paper for loan related to guarantor.
6 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
V. Ext.-E: Page 4 of form no. L-444-e A/c of debit security.
VI. Ext.-F: form No.- O.D.-168 (Paper for guarantor).
VII. Ext.-G: Xerox copy of three vouchers in the name of
different papers.
VIII. Ext.-G/1: Three sheets Xerox copy of vouchers in the name
of different papers date 20.05.2002.
IX. Mark-Y for identification: One signature on pre-trap
memorandum.
9. The learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence oral as well
as documentary led by the respective parties, arrived at definite
conclusion about the guilt of the appellant for the offences under
Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. Accordingly, the
learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced him as stated above, which
has been assailed in this appeal.
Submission on behalf of appellant:-
10. Assailing the impugned judgment, the learned counsel for the
appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has committed serious
illegality while appreciating the evidence of witnesses examined in this
case by the prosecution. The testimony of main witness, namely, PW-6
complainant Deo Prasad Sahu and the shadow witness Lakho Tirky
(PW-9) have failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification and its
acceptance and recovery from personal and conscious possession of the
appellant Bilokan Bara as bribe amount. The principal debtor Patras
Kandulna examined as PW-8 admits that just after sanction of loan, he
renounced the running of flour mill and handed over the flour mill
machine to the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu illegally and in
7 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
unauthorized manner. The complainant has stood guarantor of the loan
amount. Admittedly, not a single installment of the loan amount, which
was sanctioned in the month of March, 2002, was paid by Patras
Kandulna from the very inception of advance given to him. It is also
admitted fact that since the month of May, 2002, the complainant of this
case took over the flour mill machine, installed at his home and started
running the same. As per evidence of PW-8 Patras Kandulna and
evidence of complainant PW-6 himself, he was obliged to pay the loan
installment after taking the machine but he also failed to pay any
installment till the month of November, 2002. The complainant
approached the bank only in the month of November, 2002 and
deposited Rs. 3,000/-. Thereafter, he was further directed to make
payment of next installment by 07.12.2002. It is quite surprising about
the complainant, who was not debtor in this case, although a guarantor
was liable to pay the loan amount, whenever called upon by the bank,
the complainant taking advantage of the situation and for his own
benefit of subsidy, especially, granted to SC/ST categories under the
Scheme of S.J.S.Y, started putting pressure upon the bank official to
illegally get transferred of the loan account in his favor. He has also not
paid the installment rather with a view to save his own skin from
prosecution lodged this case. It is further submitted that in the entire
trap proceeding, there was presence of PW-9 & PW-6, i.e., Lakho Tirky
and Deo Prasad Sahu respectively, but none of them have stated that
any demand of bribe was made by the appellant with the complainant
rather loan account passbook was produced and after taking the loan
account passbook, put stamp on the photograph of Patras Kandulna and
8 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
received money towards payment of installment, money was counted by
him and kept on table. In the meantime, all the formalities of trapping
were conducted and hands of the accused were washed in the liquid of
sodium carbonate. Although, the trap proceedings has been conducted
in this case but the gist of the offence regarding demand of bribe or
illegal gratification for showing any favor to the complainant in respect
of loan account, its acceptance and direct recovery from possession of
the appellant has not been proved in this case. The entire factual aspect
of this case clearly indicates that the original principal debtor was never
brought into picture, while lodging of this case and at the time of
preparation of pre-trap memorandum and post-trap memorandum, the
investigating officer (PW-10 S.K. Sinha), has also admitted that word
"Bribe" has never been used in the entire conversation between the
complainant and the accused at the time of delivery of money. The loan
account passbook was also seized by the complainant on 10.12.2002
nearly after one week of the incident. It is apparent that at the time of
approaching the bank on 04.12.2002, the appellant has only asked for
loan account passbook and the money was to be deposited in the said
account as loan installment and the money, after being counted, was
also put on table. If the appellant had any ulterior motive or intending to
receive bribe, the money could never been put on table. The factual
spectrum does not show any body language of the appellant as receiving
any bribe amount. The entire case is based upon no preliminary enquiry
made at the bank branch office prior to institution of complaint. B. C.
Chourasia, Inspector, C.B.I., Ranchi, who submitted verification report
of the complaint, has also not been examined in this case, reason best
9 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
known to the prosecution. The sanction order has not been proved by
any of the competent witness. Therefore, the demand of installment for
satisfying the loan account has been given color of bribe in this case by
the complainant and falsely implicated the appellant with a view to
avoid the liability from loan, to which, he had stood guarantor and also
to take benefit of subsidy, which he was never entitled. It is further
submitted that due to unwarranted misdeed of an unscrupulous, the
present proceeding was initiated against an innocent bank official and
the learned Trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of
main witnesses of facts in the light of materials elicited in the cross-
examination of the investigating officer, has recorded the findings about
guilt of the appellant, which is absolutely beyond the weight of
evidence, illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside. The appellant
deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him and,
accordingly, this appeal may be allowed.
Submission on behalf of State:-
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the state-CBI has opposed
the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant and
defending the impugned judgment has submitted that the prosecution
has been able to prove all the ingredients of offences under Sections 7 &
13(1) read with 13(2)(d) of the P.C. Act. In section 20 of the P.C. Act,
there is presumption against the accused if the foundational facts are
proved. The appellant has miserably failed to explain or offer any valid
and cogent reason for false implication either in his statement under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. or adduced by defence evidence. The
appellant has been caught red handed while asking and accepting bribe
10 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
of Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant in order to show favor for running
flour mill by him, although he stood as guarantor for the loan. The
chemical examination report conducted by C.F.S.L., Kolkata also
corroborates prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has
very wisely and aptly scrutinized the evidence adduced by the
prosecution and committed no error of law while convicting and
sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offence calling for any
interference in this case. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be
dismissed.
Analysis, Reasons and Decision:-
12. I have gone through the records of the case alongwith the impugned
judgment and order in the light of the contentions raised on behalf of
both side.
13. The only point for consideration of this appeal is, as to whether the
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any serious
error or law calling for any interference or not?
14. Before adjudicating the above point, it is pertinent to apprise with
the testimony of the witnesses examined during trial.
15. It appears that altogether 10 witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution.
PW-8 Patras Kandulna- According to his evidence, in the year
2001-02, he was residing at Village Jorobari. He applied for a loan for
installing a flour mill before Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch. He
has proved his application alongwith his photo affixed on the
application which was filled up by the then bank manager and signed by
this witness in total 21 pages, marked ext.-9 for identification. He has
11 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
further deposed that loan was sanctioned in his favour and he also
installed flour mill but after some days, his wife became ill then he was
incapable to run the flour mill, then he handed over the charge of mill
for running the same to Deo Prasad Sahu (complainant-cum-PW-6)
because he was also guarantor in the loan transaction of this witness. He
has further deposed that Deo Prasad Sahu took away the flour machine
and started running the same and outcome of income, he was also given
some share and from that income, he used to pay the installment of laon.
He also admits that he gave flour machine to Deo Prasad Sahu on oral
agreement without entering into any written agreement. After some day,
he came to know that the branch manager Bilokan Bara (appellant)
asked bribe from Deo Prasad Sahu and was apprehended taking bribe.
Thereafter, local M.L.A., Neel Tirkey of Simdega area visited to this
witness and requested to come to police station, where his signature was
obtained on a blank paper and he had no occasion to see the same paper
again.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that he installed the
flour mill after taking loan at his house. He has three sons but he
himself was running the flour mill. He never lodged any written
information at the bank that he has given the flour machine to Deo
Prasad Sahu. He also admits that out of income from running of the
flour mill by Deo Prasad Sahu, some money was given to him that was
used to pay the installment of loan and up till now, he had paid eight
installments. (Admittedly, loan was taken in the year 2001-02 and PW-8
was examined on 08.01.2004, till then he has paid only eight
installments). It also admits that he was never asked for any bribe by the
12 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
bank manager, Bilokan Bara. This witness again reiterates that still the
flour machine is installed at the house of Deo Prasad Sahu and he never
informed the bank about said transaction with Deo Prasad Sahu.
PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu is another important witness of this case.
According to his evidence, he runs a grocery shop at his village
Kohiyar. He knows Patras Kandulna, who is his friend. He has further
deposed that Patras Kandulna took a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from
Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch for running a flour mill and he
stood guarantor to the said loan. He has also proved his signature at two
places on the bank loan paper as a guarantor, which has been marked
ext.- 2/27 & 2/30. He has also identified the signature of Patras
Kandulna on the documents of thirty one pages marked as ext.- 2/31 to
2/61. He also states that flour mill was installed at the house of Patras
Kandulna after sanction of loan in his favour but he could not run the
same properly due to illness of his wife. He has further deposed that on
request of Patras Kandulna that he is not able to pay the bank loan
installment regularly, hence, he took over the flour machine and after
installing at his house the same on May, 2002, it was being run by this
witness and out of income, he paid loan installment. In the meantime,
on 29.11.2002 at about 6:00 P.M., bank manager of Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, Hurda Branch namely Bilokan Bara met this witness at his house
and told that you are running the flour mill, hence, you will give Rs.
3,000/- as bribe otherwise, a case will be instituted against him and you
may go to jail. Therefore, this witness deposited Rs. 3,000/- as
installment of loan on 30.11.2002 but the bank manager told him to
again give Rs. 3,000/- on 07.12.2002. He was not desirous to pay bribe,
13 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
hence, he lodged a complaint on 03.12.2002 before S.P., C.B.I. at the
office of C.B.I. He has proved his written report as Ext.-5. Thereafter,
C.B.I. Inspector, B.C. Chourasia met him and interrogated about the
occurrence and he remained at the office of C.B.I. on that night. In the
next day morning at about 5:30 A.M., Parmanand Barla and Lakho
Tirkey came at C.B.I. office as witness. He was also introduced with
other officials, namely, Mukesh Verma, Chetan Mahto, R. S. Solanki
and S. K. Sinha. He has further deposed that R. S. Solanki smeared
Phenophathelien power on a paper and on his direction, Parmanand
Barla touched the above paper by his right hand fingers, which was
washed with sodium carbonate and the colour of the liquid turned into
pink. The said liquid was sealed on a bottle and signed by all the
witnesses alongwith this witness. He has further proved his signature as
ext.- 2/62 and the bottle in which the liquid was sealed is previous
marked as material ext.- I. He has further stated that the said paper was
kept in an envelope and sealed and signed by all the witnesses. The
envelop is marked as material Ext.-II and signature of this witness is
marked Ext.- 2/63. Thereafter, he was asked Rs. 3,000/-, then his gave
30 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. The proof of currency notes were
recorded and also seared with phenophathelien power. The said notes
were also given to this witness, which he put on upper pocket of his
shirt and remaining phenophethelien power was kept in an envelop and
sealed, which was also signed by him, marked Ext.- 2/64 and the
envelope is already marked as material Ext.-III. All the witnesses and
C.B.I. officials and this witness were instructed for further action. He
was advised that when the manager, Bilokan Bara receives the money,
14 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
he will point out the team by combing his hair by right hand. Thereafter,
memorandum of pre-trap was prepared and signed by everyone. This
witness has proved is signature and memorandum as Ext. 2/65 to 2/69.
He has further deposed that, thereafter, this witness alongwith other
C.B.I. Officials proceeded for Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch
and reached there at about 12:55 P.M. He alongwith Lakho Tirkey (PW-
9) went towards upper story of the bank office and S. K. Sinha (PW-10)
was standing near the gate of the bank. He met with branch manager,
Bilokan Bara and branch manager told him that “ “ ,
then he replied, “ ”. Thereafter, bank manager, Bilokan Bara asked the
bank loan passbook in the name of Patras Kandulna and stamped on the
passbook and returned the same receiving money in his right hand. He
also counted the note from his both hand and put the same on his office
table and told this witness to run the flour mill without any hindrance.
At the same time, he also signaled by combing his hair by right hands,
then S. K. Sinha and other officials came there and bank manager was
challenged by S. K. Sinha that he has taken Rs. 3,000/- as bribe. Then,
the bank manager Bilokan Bara became nervous. His both hands were
caught and duly washed with liquid of sodium carbonate and fingers of
right hand put in the said liquid, which turned into pink. The liquid was
sealed in a bottle and signed by independent witness alongwith this
witness who has proved his own signature as Ext.- 1/65 and the bottle as
previous material Ext.-IV. Thereafter, left hand was also dipped in the
said liquid which also turned into pink and liquid was preserved in a
bottle and sealed and signed by this witness. The currency notes
number, given to the manager Bilokan Bara, were again noted, which
15 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
was put in envelop and sealed and signed by witnesses. He has also
proved signature over the same. He has also stated that the
memorandum and all the proceedings taken by the C.B.I. Officials was
prepared in 11 pages, which were also signed by him, marked as Ext.-
2/68 to 2/78. He has also proved receipt of deposit of Rs. 3,000/-
installment of the loan on 30.11.2002, marked as Ext.- 6
This witness has been extensively cross-examined by defence,
wherein, he admits that he was running grocery shop since 1991.
Although, he has expressed no knowledge that on earlier occasion also
Patras Kandulna was granted loan for running flour mill, which was
closed after the payment of loan. Again, he applied for loan for running
a new flour mill and having experience of running flour mill since 1995,
hence, loan was sanctioned to him. This witness further admits that just
after two months of sanction of loan in favor of Patras Kandulna, he
took over the flour machine and started running the same. On the date of
occurrence also, flour mill was lying at his home and being run by him.
He also admits that flour mill loan sanctioned in favor of Patras
Kandulna, was under scheme of Swarn Jayanti Swarojgar Yojna being a
member of Scheduled Tribe. He was also given a grant of Rs. 10,000/-
apart from loan amount of Rs. 25,000/- and this witness was guarantor
in the said loan. He also admits that he is not belonging to tribal
community and he could not get the grant of subsidy of Rs. 10,000/-, if
loan may have been sanctioned to him. He was also not entitled for the
sanction of said loan in his favor because he was already running a
grocery shop. He also admits that under the self-employment scheme,
the loan application is being processed through B.D.O. (Block
16 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
Development Officer) and he recommends about sanction of loan to the
bank. He also admits that his savings bank account on the same branch
of Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch was lying as guarantee for the
said loan. He also admits that as per loan agreement between bank and
Patras Kandulna, no other person can be permitted to run the flour mill
except the principal debtor without permission of the bank. His
signature on bank loan agreement is also marked Ext.-A.
He further admits that in the month of March, 2002, loan was
sanctioned and since month of May, he started running the flour mill
without giving any oral or written information to the bank. He was not
informed that the flour mill was still property of bank. He also admits
that after taking flour mill from Patras Kandulna, he undertook to pay
installment of the machine. He further admits that at the time of taking
flour mill machine from Patras Kandulna, which was given in writing
by Patras Kandulna that he is not able to rune the flour mill and the said
document was given to C.B.I. Officials by him but the same was not
retuned to him by C.B.I. Officials and at the time of his evidence, also
that document was not shown by the C.B.I. Official. He further
reiterates that since he has taken over the flour mill and running for the
first time, he gave Rs. 3,000/- as installment of bank loan. There was
nothing to pay in the month of December. He also admits that his
economic condition was not sound, hence, he requested the bank
manager that he has given Rs. 3,000/- in the month of November and
th
within a week, i.e., by 7 December, he has again to pay further Rs.
3,000. Then, he was threatened of institution of a case and sending him
to jail. He did not protest that he has deposited the complete installment
17 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
till month of November and December, hence, why will he be
prosecuted and sent to jail. This fact was also not disclosed by him to
Patras Kandulna, who was the principal debtor before lodging case at
C.B.I. He also admits that in overall proceedings conducted by C.B.I.,
Patras Kandulna was not in figure at all. He further admits the loan
agreement between the bank and Patras Kandulna as Ext.-C and
guarantee document bearing signature of this witness as Ext.-D, printed
endorsement as Ext.-E, guarantee format as Ext.- F.
In his cross-examination, this witness further admits that when the
pre-trap memorandum was prepared and when he went to the branch
office, he met with Bilokan Bara and saluted him. Bilokan Bara told
him that have you brought money and also asked passbook of loan
account. Thereafter, he asked the money saying that he can run the flour
mill without any obstacle. He also admits at that time, Bilokan Bara told
that “ पतरस कंडुलना का जो आटा चक्की चला रहे हो , उसका पैसा दो। ” He also
states that word „Bribe” was also used by Bilokan Bara. His attention
was also drawn towards the post-trap memorandum, wherein no word of
“Bribe” has been used. Then, this witness also admits that in his
application lodged before the S.P., C.B.I., he has not mentioned that he
was running the flour mill of Patras Kandulna in connection with that
bribe money was asked by bank manager, Bilokan Bara. The attention
of this witness has also been drawn towards the material Ext.-I, which
was demonstrated at Ranchi by the C.B.I. Officials and the material
Ext.-IV & V. He also admits that after the incident, again he was not
interrogated by C.B.I. Officials.
18 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
He has denied the suggestion of defence that in order to grab grant
subsidy amount given to the Scheduled Tribe members, he approached
Patras Kandulna for loan and after sanction of loan, he took over the
charge of flour mill and the installment amount of Rs. 3,000/- which he
was bound to pay, he paid the installment amount of Rs. 3,000/- in the
month of November and for the next installment of Rs. 3,000/- in order
to save his own skin lodged this false case.
The remaining witnesses of fact are either members of trap team or
investigating officer and other concerned.
PW-1 Md. Usman, the Senior Manager at Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Head Office, Ranchi has proved sanction order for prosecution of the
accused Bilokan Bara issued by the then chairman Sri Kamlesh
Mukherjee, Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Ranchi as Ext.- 1.
PW-2 Dinanath Prasad Singh is the Credit Manager at Kshetriay
Gramin Bank, main branch, Ranchi, who has narrated the procedure for
grant of loan. He has further deposed that loan up to Rs. 25,000/- is
sanctioned by Scale-I manager and Scale-II manager can sanction loan
up to Rs. 50,000/-. He has further deposed that in the year 2002,
Bilokan Bara, the present appellant was working as Scale-1 manager at
Hurda Branch of Kshetriya Gramin Bank. He has further deposed that
under the Scheme of Swarn Jayanti Gramin Swarojgar Yojana, i.e.,
SGSY, loan advance is sanctioned to the people, who are living below
poverty line under the government scheme, in which, people of SC/ST
are granted Rs. 10,000/- as subsidy but the other person below the
poverty line are granted Rs. 7500/- maximum as subsidy. He has further
stated that in the instant case, Patras Kandulna (PW-8) had applied for
19 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
advance loan under S.G.S.Y. Scheme for installation of flour mill (Atta
Chakki) and he was granted loan of Rs. 25,000/- initiated by the
concerned B.D.O. In his cross examination, he has deposed that Scale-I
manager has power to sanction up to Rs. 25,000/ including subsidy
amount, but excluding subsidy amount, he has only power to sanction
Rs. 15,000/-. There is no mention of amount as to how much subsidy
was paid. He has further deposed that as per terms and conditions of
loan agreement, the debtor has to pay Rs. 370/- per month as fixed
monthly installment form the month of May, 2002. He has also stated
that installments are usually paid by the principal debtor.
PW-3 Anilson Lakra is B.D.O., Bero Block. According to his
evidence, application for grant of loan under S.J.S.Y. scheme was
applied before the Block Development Officer and after verification,
recommendation was issued to send to the concerned bank for sanction
of loan. He has further deposed that application of Patras Kandulna was
submitted for granting loan of Rs. 25,000/- to run Atta Chakki. The
application alongwith photographs affixed on the application are
marked Ext. 2 to 2/3, which was sent to Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda
Branch for disbursement for loan.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that since the
applicant Patras Kandulna was belonging to S.T., hence, 50% subsidy,
i.e., to the tune of Rs. 12,500/- was to be given to him.
PW-4 Bhimdeo Bhagat is a bank officer at Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, head office, Ranchi. He has worked with Bilokan Bara, hence, he
is acquainted with his handwriting and signature. He has also proved the
verification report of the loan application by Bilokan Bara as Ext.-3 and
20 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
passbook of loan account no. 53 of Patras Kandulna and photograph
attested by Bilokan Bara as Ext.-4.
In his cross examination, he admits that in the Ext.-3, there is
mention that the application of Patras Kandulna had experience of
running flour mill since 1995 and previous loan was already paid by
him. Thereafter, this fresh loan was taken for the same purpose. Ext.- 4
was also issued on 30.03.2002. The advance was mentioned of Rs.
25,000/- on that day. Thereafter an entry is made on 30.11.2002 of Rs.
3,000/- which was deposited in cash.
PW-5 Premanand Barla is senior security inspector posted at
C.C.L., Ranchi. According to his evidence, on 03.12.2002, Chief
Security Officer issued an order that on 04.12.2002 at 5:30 A.M., he has
to report before Sri S.K. Sinha, Inspector at office of C.B.I., Ranchi. In
compliance of order, he reported to C.B.I. Office, Ranchi, where he met
with Inspector Sri S. K. Singh and other officials, namely, B.C.
Chourasia, R. S. Solanki and other officials. He also saw Lakho Tirkey,
CMPF, Ranchi and Deo Prasad Sahu, who were also present there. He
was introduced to them by Sri S. K. Sinha. He was informed by Sri S.K.
Sinha that Deo Prasad Sahu has lodged a complaint against Branch
Manager, Hurda namely Bilokan Bara for asking Rs. 3,000/- as bribe.
He was also shown a written complaint of Deo Prasad Sahu. Thereafter,
he was asked to dip in finger in a paper smeared with Phenolphthalein
power. He put his right hand fingers and his hand was got washed in a
liquid of Sodium Carbonate, which was of white color and his right
hand fingers were dipped in the said liquid, which turned into pink. This
liquid was kept in a bottle and wrapped with white paper containing
21 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
signature of this witness and other officials. He has proved his own
signature as Ext.- 2/5 and the bottle containing liquid as material Ext.-I.
The piece of paper was kept in an envelope and sealed, which was also
signed by this witness marked Ext.-2/6 and envelope as material Ext.-II.
Thereafter, money was asked from Deo Prasad Sahu, to which, he gave
Rs. 3,000/- containing 30 currency notes of Rs. 100. The numbers of
currency notes were noted on a paper and smeared with Phenolphthalein
power and returned to Deo Prasad Sahu with instruction to keep with
him and when only the accused demands money, it has to be paid to
him, otherwise no. The above currency notes were kept by Deo Prasad
Sahu in his left pocket of shirt. The remaining phenolphthalein power
was sealed in another envelope, which marked as material Ext.-III
containing signature of all the officials. Thereafter, all the officials
including this witness were searched extraneously and were instructed
to keep nothing except pen and identity card. He was also instructed to
accompany with Deo Prasad Sahu and watch and listen to the
conversation in between Deo Prasad Sahu and Bilokan Bara. He has
further deposed that at about 6:30 A.M., he alongwith C.B.I. Officials
proceeded to Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch and reached there
at about 1:00 P.M. All the officials were directed to take their own
position and instructed to Deo Prasad Sahu and Lakh Tirkey to go bank
office. Sri S. K. Sinha, C.B.I. Inspector followed them from behind.
This witness was standing at the ground floor of the bank premises,
which was double storied building. The Bank was situated at first floor.
He has further stated that after some time, Deo Prasad Sahu gave signal
combing his head by right hand, then this witness and others went inside
22 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
the bank and B.C. Chourasia and R. S. Solanki caught red handed to the
accused Bilokan Bara and told that you are arrested for taking bribe of
Rs. 3,000/- Both hands of the accused was washed in sodium carbonate
liquid, which turned into pink and seizure list was prepared.
In his cross-examination, he reiterates that raid was conducted on
04.12.2002 and on the same day, they returned to Ranchi in the night at
about 11-12 P.M. His statement was recorded by I.O. at Ranchi. He
further admits that at the time of occurrence, he was standing on the
ground floor and came after signal by Deo Prasad Sahu, hence, he does
not know what conversation took place in between Deo Prasad and
Bilokan Bara at the time of giving Rs. 3,000.- He also saw that the
tented money was lying on the table of Bilokan Bara. He also admits
that no passbook was seized from there.
PW-7 Vimal Chandra Purkait is Junior Scientific Expert posted
at C.F.S.L., Kolkata and is a formal witness. He has proved CFSL report
in connection with this case and D-mark bottle as Ext. 03/03A, R-mark
bottle as Ext.-03/03B and L-mark bottle as Ext.-03/03C. He has further
proved the bottles previous material Ext.-I, V & IV. He also admits that
bottles sent for examined to the CFSL by CBI were sealed, which were
opened for the purpose of examination. After chemical examination,
found that all the three bottles containing liquids were of sodium
carbonate and phenolphthalein. He has further proved his detailed report
as Ext.-7, forwarding letter issued by S.P., C.B.I., Assistant Director,
C.F.S.L., Sri Suresh Babu forwarded to S.P., C.B.I., marked Ext.-8.
PW-9 Lakho Tirkey is Assistant Commissioner-II, C.M.P.F.
Office, Ranchi. According to his evidence, on 03.12.2002, he was
23 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
working as superintendent at C.M.P.F. Office, Ranchi. His controlling
officer directed him to report at C.B.I. Office on 04.12.2002. In the
morning at about 5:30 A.M., he reported to Sri S. K. Sinha, Inspector
CBI, Ranchi, where he was introduced with other CBI officials. The
complainant Deo Prsad Sahu, C.C.L. Officer, Premanand Barla and
informed about the object of the said assembling stating that Bilokan
Bara, Manager at Kshetriay Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch has asked Rs.
3,000/- as bribe from Deo Prasad Sahu and he has to conduct trap to
apprehend him red handed. He was also shown the complaint petition of
Deo Prasad Sahu. Thereafter, pre-trap memorandum was prepared. He
was also directed to accompany at the time of going to Hurda Branch
office for giving bribe money. Thereafter, this witness alongwith others
and Deo Prasad Sahu proceeded to Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Hurda
Branch. As per direction, he alongwith Deo Prasad Sahu went to the
first floor of the branch office. When they reached to the bank office,
Deo Prasad Sahu met with bank manager, Bilokan Bara and paid respect
by saying "प्रणाम", तब मैनेजर साहब ने पूछा कक "पैसा लाये हो या नहीं ? तब
उसने कहा पैसा लाया हूँ। तब बैंक मैनेजर ने पैसा माूँगा और देव प्रसाद साह ने शट
के ऊपर बाएं पॉकेट से रुपया कनकलकर मैनेजर साहब के दाकहने हाथ में कदया।
मैनेजर साहब ने रुपये को दोनों हाथों से कगनकर टेबल पर रुपया को सामने रख
कदए। तब इशारा हुआ, कजसपर C.B.I. के सभी लोग वहाूँ पहुंचे और Bilokan Bara,
Manager का हाथ पकड़ कलए कलाई से। Thereafter, he has proved the post-
trap memorandum which took place in presence of witnesses by
washing hands of the accused Bilokan Bara in the liquid of Sodium
Carbonate, which turned into pink.
24 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
PW-10 Sanjay Kumar Sinha is the C.B.I.Inspector posted at
A.C.B., Ranchi. According to his evidence, since the year 2002, he was
working as Inspector of Police at C.B.I., A.C.B., Ranchi. On
03.12.2002, Sri Deo Prasad Sahu visited the office and submitted a
written complaint to S.P., C.B.I. in connection with demand of illegal
gratification of Rs. 3,000/- by Bilokan Bara, Manager, Kshetriya
Gramin Bank, Hurda Branch, district- Simdega for running the flour
mill. He has further stated that the loan was sanctioned in favour of one
Patras Kandulna and the complainant was guarantor of the said loan. He
has further deposed that written complaint was marked by S.P. to Sri. B.
C. Chourasia, Inspector C.B.I. for verification report. On the same day,
recommending therein for registration of a regular case under Section 7
of the P.C. Act, 1988 against the accused Bilokan Bara. He has proved
the verification report submitted by B.C. Chourasia as Ext.- 10.
Thereafter, Sri N. C. Jha, S.P., C.B.I., A.C.B., Ranchi endorsed the said
written verification to this witness ordering for registration of a regular
case and investigation. He has further proved aforesaid endorsement
marked Ext.-11. After registration of regular case vide R.C. 16A of
2002 (R) against the above accused for the offence under Section 7 of
the P.C. Act and proved formal F.I.R. is marked Ext.-12. This witness
discussed the matter with S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi and it was decided to lay
a trap against Bilokan Bara while demanding and accepting illegal
gratification of Rs. 3,000/- from the complainant Sri Deo Prasad Sahu.
Accordingly, trap team was constituted by S.P. C.B.I., Ranchi
consisting this witness as trap laying officer, B.C. Chourasia, Inspector,
R. S. Solanki, Mukesh Verma, Both sub-inspector, Sri Vinod Kumar
25 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
Ojha and Chetan Mahto, both constable. He has further deposed that
two independent witnesses were also requisitioned from their concerned
office, namely Premanand Barla, Sr. Security Inspector, C.C.L.
Headquarter, Ranchi and Sri Lakho Tirky, Superintendent C.M.P.F.,
Region-I, Ranchi. The trap was to be conducted on 04.12.2002. All the
above officials assembled on 04.12.2002 at 5:30 A.M., at I.O.'s room of
C.B.I. Office. After introduction and explanation of the purpose of
assemblage, the process of trap was explained to every member. He has
also proved pre-trap preparation of memorandum and its manner,
collection of Rs. 3,000/- and after smearing with Phenolphthalein power
handed over to the complaint, which was kept in his pocket of shirt to
be given to the accused on his demand and not otherwise. The
independent witness Lakho Tirky was asked to accompany the
complainant Sri Deo Prasad Sahu in disguise and listen to the
conversation between the complainant and the accused Bilokan Bara
and also observe the acceptance of tainted bribe amount by the accused.
After completion of pre-trap proceedings and preparation of
memorandum (Ext.-13), this witness alongwith other trap members and
two independent witnesses proceeded for Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Hurda Branch and reached there at about 12:55 P.M. The complainant
alongwith shadow witness Lakho Tirky advanced towards the stairs for
the first floor and entered to the branch office of the bank. This witness
also followed them keeping a safe distance and took his position at the
entrance of the bank branch. The complainant contacted the accused
Bilokan Bara and some conversation took place between the
complainant and the accused while handing over the passbook of the
26 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
loan account by the complainant. Accused Bilokan Bara attested the
photograph of loanee by putting rubber stamp and his initial on the
photograph and the said passbook was returned to the complainant Deo
Prasad Sahu. Again, some conversation took place between the
complainant and the accused, then tainted G.C. Notes worth Rs. 3,000/-
from the left pocket of wearing shirt by the complainant through his
right hand and handed over in the right hand of Bilokan Bara. The
money was counted by the accused by fingers of his both hands and
being satisfied with the amount being Rs. 3,000/- kept the said notes on
his office table. Again, some conversation took place between the
complainant and accused. In the meantime, the shadow witness Lakho
Tirky, who was standing by the side of the complainant in disguise as
customer also overheard his conversation. Thereafter, the complainant
came out and gave pre-fixed signal. Then, all the members of C.B.I. trap
team and the other witness went inside the branch disclosing their
identity, challenged the accused Bilokan Bara of accepting Rs. 3,000/-
from the complainant. Accordingly, post-trap memorandum was
prepared. The accused Bilokan Bara was arrested for taking bribe
amounting to Rs. 3,000/- and remanded to custody. He has further
proved the post-trap memorandum as Ext.-14. This witness has also
seized original loan document account no. 53 standing in the name of
Patras Kandulna and prepared seizure list, which is marked Ext.-15. The
seized materials were sent to C.F.S.L., Kolkata for chemical
examination. After completion of investigation, finding sufficient
evidence submitted charge-sheet against the above named accused for
the aforesaid offence.
27 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
In his cross-examination, this witness categorically admits that the
enquiry about the genuineness of the allegation was made by Inspector
B. C. Chourasia, who did not visit to Hurda Branch of Kshetriya
Gramin Bank due to paucity of time. Before registration of the case,
Patras Kandulna was not examined by the Inspector, B.C. Chourasia
rather he was interrogated for the first time on 10.12.2002. No local
person was made witness of the trap. This witness also fairly admits that
during conversation between the complaint and the accused, at the time
of trap, word "Bribe" has not been used. He also admits that the tainted
money and loan account passbook which were seized in this case, were
not seized from pocket of accused Bilokan Bara rather lying on his table
and passbook was seized from the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu on
10.12.2002 and it was not seized from the accused Bilokan Bara. This
witness has denied the suggestion of defence that he has not properly
investigated the case and after investigation, no sufficient evidence was
found for accusation and submitted charge-sheet against the accused not
under conspiracy with the complainant, he has submitted charge-sheet
in this case against the accused.
16. On the other hand, defence has also examined two witnesses.
DW-1 Braj Mohan Prasad is clerk-cum-cashier in Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, Hurda Branch. According to his evidence, each Wednesday is
observed as no working day but bank remains open for the purpose of
realization of loan amount. On 20.05.2004, three deposit vouchers in
respect of debt recovery was realized by him as in-charge bank
manager. He has also worked as in-charge bank manager on instruction
of Head office. He has produced Xerox copy of the same certified to be
28 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
credibility of original, which was marked as Ext. A-G (with objection).
There is nothing in his evidence as to how the aforesaid vouchers are
related to the facts of this case.
DW-2 Ved Prakash is another bank manager of Kshetriya Gramin
Bank posted at Balagang Branch. He has simply stated about honesty
and discipline work and conduct of the accused and expressed nothing
personal knowledge about the factual aspects of in this case.
17. It is also pertinent to apprise with Sections 7, 13(1) r/w 13(2)(d)
and 20 of the P.C. Act for better appreciation of the case.
Section-7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal
remuneration in respect of an official act.
Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains
or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or
for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal
remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any
official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his
official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or
attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the
Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or
Government company referred to in clause (c) of section 2, or with any
public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with
imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may
extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanations.-
(a) "Expecting to be a public servant." If a person not expecting to be in
office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is
about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty
of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.
(b) "Gratification." The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary
gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.
(c) "Legal remuneration." The words "legal remuneration" are not
restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand,
29 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or
the organisation, which he serves, to accept.
(d) "A motive or reward for doing." A person who receives a
gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or
is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.
(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that
his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person
and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any
other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has
committed an offence under this section
Section-13 Criminal misconduct by a public servant
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,-
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain from any person for himself or for any other person any
gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as
is mentioned in section 7; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to
obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without
consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate
from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to
be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be
transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions
of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from
any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so
concerned; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise
converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his
control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or
(d) if he,-
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or
30 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time
during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public
servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "known sources of
income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt
has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or
orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less
than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be
liable to fine.
Section-19 Previous sanction necessary for prosecution
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under
section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public
servant, except with the previous sanction,-
(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs
of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the Central Government, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the
affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the
sanction of the State Government, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove
him from his office.
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the
previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by
the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority,
such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which
would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office
at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973,-
(a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be
reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the
ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the
sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that
court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby;
31 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
(b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of
any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the
authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity
has resulted in a failure of justice;
(c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other
ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to
any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other
proceedings.
(4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any
error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or
resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact
whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier
stage in the proceedings.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,-
(a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction;
(b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any
requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified
authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of
a similar nature.
Section-20 Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other
than legal remuneration
(1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or
section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 13 it is
proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has
agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself , or for any other
person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable
thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is
proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or
attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the
case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7 or,
as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he
knows to be Inadequate.
(2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under section 12 or under
clause (b) of section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than
legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be
given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be
presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give
32 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case
may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7, or, as
the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he
knows to be inadequate.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and (2), the
court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the
said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion,
so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.
18. I have given anxious consideration to the overall aspects of the case
and the material evidence available on record.
19. It appears that in the instant case, the pith and substance of the
material lies in demand of Rs. 3,000/- as bribe for running a flour mill
by a guarantor, not by the principal debtor. It is admitted fact that the
principal debtor belonged to tribal community and he was advanced a
loan of Rs. 25,000/- on 30.03.2002 for establishing a flour mill, which
was established by him at his house, just at the time of disbursement of
loan in the month of March, 2002. It is also admitted position that the
complainant Deo Prasad Sahu, who stood guarantor of the loan, took
over the flour mill from the principal debtor and started running the
same on his request and undertaking to pay the installment of loan
amount. This understanding between the principal debtor and
guarantor was never communicated to the concerned bank manager,
who happens to be accused (appellant) in this appeal. It is also
th
admitted fact that since month of March, 2002 to till 30 November,
2002, not a single installment towards re-payment of loan was paid
either by the principal debtor or by the guarantor. It is also admitted by
the complainant that the accused visited him and asked for Rs. 3,000/-
towards payment of installment which was paid by him on 30.11.2002
33 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
th
but he was further demanded of Rs. 3,000/- to be deposited by 7
December, 2002 as illegal gratification by the said manager. The
principal debtor never came into light while lodging the complaint
rather it is specific case of the complainant that he was asked to pay
Rs. 3,000/- as bribe by the appellant on 29.11.2002 itself and he
deposited the installment of Rs. 3,000/- on 30.11.2002 in the loan
account of principal debtor Patras Kandulna and he was further asked
th
to deposit Rs. 3,000/- by 7 December. Since, the complainant was not
desirous to pay the bribe, hence, he lodged the complaint before C.B.I.
It is also obvious that one B.C. Chourasia, who is alleged to have
conduced preliminary enquiry as regards genuineness and truth of the
allegation levelled by the complainant, admittedly, he did not go to the
concerned bank for any enquiry rather asked the some questions to the
complainant and thereafter submitted the verification report and on that
basis trap was organized. There is no dispute about organization of trap
with preparation of pre-trap memorandum in presence of the concerned
witnesses but so far as conduct of trap at the relevant time on
04.12.2002 at about 5:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., is concerned, the main
witness examined by the prosecution or the complainant Deo Prasad
Sahu (PW-6) and shadow witness Lakho Tirky (PW-9), as per
complainant, when he alongwith Lakho Tirky reached in the office of
present appellant for the purpose of laying trap, he wished him saying
"pranam sir", which was also reciprocated by the accused. The original
version of conversation between them in presence of Lakho Tirky is
reproduced hereunder:- " (7) इसके बाद हमलोग सारा टीम क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक,
हुदाट शाखा के कलए चले और करीब 12:55 बजे कदन में वहाूँ पहुंचे। लाखो कतकी मेरे
34 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
साथ बैंक में ऊपरी तल्ला पर गए । एस.के. कसन्हा बैंक के गेट के पास खड़े थे। मैं
वहाूँ जाकर ब्ांच मैनेजर कबलोकन बाड़ा को प्रणाम ककया। तब कबलोकन बाड़ा ने
हमसे कहा, क्या साह जी पैसा लाये हो? तब हमने जवाब कदया, जी हाूँ लाया हूँ। तब
उन्होंने हमसे बैंक का पासबुक कलया कजसमें पतरस कंडुलना का फोटो सटा था।
उसमें उन्होंने स्ांप मारा और मुझे पासबुक वापस कर कदया और दाकहना हाथ
बढ़ाकर रुपया माूँगा तो हमने उनको तीन हजार रूपये शट के ऊपरी वाले पॉकेट
से कनकलकर कदया, कजसे अपना दोनों हांथों से कगना और उसे वे अपना ऑकफस के
टेबल के ऊपर रख कदया। तब हमसे वे बोले ठीक है जाओ आटा चक्की चलाओ,
कोई कदक्कत नहीं है। इसके बाद जो हमको इशारा बतलाया गया था हमने वैसा
ककया। तब एस. के. कसन्हा गये और उस समय तक और लोग भी आ गए थे। एस.
के. कसन्हा ने कबलोकन बाड़ा को चैलेंज ककया और कहा की आपने इनसे तीन हजार
रूपये घुस कलया है। कबलोकन बाड़ा तब नवटस हो गए। उनका हाथ एस. के. कसन्हा
ने पकड़ा ग्लास में सोकडयम काबोनेट का घोल बनाया गया। ........" Thereafter,
formality of testing by putting sodium carbonate in the liquid and
washing of hand took place, which turned into pink and seizure memo
was prepared, which has also been corroborated by CFSL report.
20. The shadow witness, Lakho Tirky (PW-9), who reached at the time
of trap alongwith the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu (PW-6) as deposed
in following words in his deposition, "….. कशकायतकताट देव प्रसाद साहु के
साथ बैंक के 1st फ्लोर पर गए। वहाूँ जाकर देव प्रसाद साहु ने बैंक मैनेजर से कमला
और प्रणाम ककया। तब मैनेजर साहेब ने पूछा की पैसा लाये हो। तब उसने कहा पैसा
लाया हूँ। तब बैंक मैनेजर ने पैसा माूँगा देव प्रसाद साहु ने शट के ऊपरी बायें
पॉकेट से रूपये कनकलकर मैनेजर साहब के दाकहने हाथ में कदया। मैनेजर साहब ने
रूपये को दोनों हाथों से कगन कर टेबल पर रूपये को सामने रख कदए। तब इशारा
हुआ। कजसपर सी.बी.आई. के लोग वहाूँ पहुूँचे और कबलोकन बाड़ा मैनेजर का हाथ
35 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
पकड़ कलए कलाई से। तब सोकडयम काबोनेट का घोल बनाया गया जो दुकधया रंग
का था उसमें कबलोकन बाड़ा का दाकहने हाथ की ऊूँगली को डुबाया गया तो घोल का
रंग कपंक हो गया। उसके बाद उस घोल को शीशी में डालकर सील ककया गया।
उसपर पहचान के शीशी R कलखा गया। ....."
21. The exact words of PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu and PW-9 Lakho Tirky
as regards demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe amount form the
appellant is Sine Quo Non for establishing the offence under Section 7
of the P.C. Act. It is crystal clear that both the witnesses have not
whispered that the appellant was demanding any illegal gratification for
showing any favour to the complainant. Admittedly, the appellant was
first of all asked for loan account passbook for making entry of deposit
that was also produced by the complainant. Thereafter, money was
asked. There is no whisper by PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu that the said loan
passbook was not returned to the complainant after putting stamp on
photograph of principal debtor pasted on the passbook. There is whisper
in the evidence of PW-9 that the appellant said after receiving the
money as stated by the complainant Deo Prasad Sahu (PW-6) as " ठीक है
जाओ आटा चक्की चलाओ, कोई कदक्कत नहीं है। ". The above material
attention in the evidence of complainant that " ठीक है जाओ आटा चक्की
चलाओ, कोई कदक्कत नहीं है। " clearly indicates that the appellant was
resisting the running of flour mill by the complainant, who was simply a
guarantor and not belonging to a member of Scheduled Tribe and in
collusion with principal debtor Patras Kandulna in order to get huge
amount as subsidy in loan, he got sanctioned of loan in favour of Patras
Kandulna and just after two months took over the flour mill. It has also
36 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
come into evidence that prior to this loan transaction also, the principal
debtor Patras Kandulna had taken loan for establishing flour mill which
was already re-paid and satisfied. In the entire episode, the principal
debtor Patras Kandulna has not come into figure in lodging this case.
Since, the complainant was himself doing an illegal act by taking over
the flour mill and not deposited any amount of installment since very
inception of the loan till 30.11.2002. After demand of installment
amount, he maliciously lodged this case against the appellant.
22. It further appears that no proper preliminary enquiry was made by
the concerned officer, Inspector B.C. Chourasia rather he interrogated
with some questions to the complainant and submitted verification
report without any enquiry. The complainant also admits that he stayed
at C.B.I. Office all over the night on 03.12.2002 and on the next
morning, trap proceeding was conducted. He also admits that first of all
loan passbook was demanded by the appellant for making entry in the
passbook and the amount to be deposited but that passbook was seized
on 10.12.2002 form the possession of complainant (PW-6) as stated by
PW-10, S. K. Sinha, which also shows cloud over the prosecution case.
23. It is the settle principal of law that for the conviction of under
Section 7 of the P.C. Act, prosecution must establish the demand of
bribe, its acceptance and recovery of the same from possession of the
accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of " Neeraj
Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)" reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, wherein,
it has been held as under:-
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public
servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish
37 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to
first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a
matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can
be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence
of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne
in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand
from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the
illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a
case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver
accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is
received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public
servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand
by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact
in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification
without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act,
in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from
the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an
offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the
bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public
servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of
the Act.
88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or
obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an
inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and
documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material
on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while
considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or
not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in
the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has died or is unavailable
to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by
letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either
orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by
circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of
acquittal of the accused public servant.
88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in
issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal
gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said
Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption
or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to
rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
38 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is
distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as
the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
24. The presumption offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC
Act can only be raised if the prosecution has been able to prove that the
accused has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to
obtain illegal gratification or valuable thing. The Hon'ble Apex Court
recently in the case of "Rafikmiya Ahmedmiya Malek Vs. State of
Gujarat" as reported in (2026) INSC 890 or (2026) LiveLaw (SC) 830 .
Mere recovery is not sufficient to attract the offence under Sections 7 &
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
25. From the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I arrive at irresistible
conclusion that the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to properly
appreciate the ocular testimony of complainant PW-6 Deo Prasad Sahu
in the broader probability and his hidden motive for false implication of
the appellant and to enjoy the illegal running of flour mill without
payment of any installment of loan amount and also in contravening of
banking rules. Moreover, in the trap conducted by C.B.I., also neither
PW-6 nor PW-9 who are the material witnesses of the trap has been able
to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant. The overall attending
circumstance has brought on record clearly indicates that there was
malafied motive of the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant
and the evidence of record also does not establish the fundamental
requirement for proving the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w
13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act against the appellant. Therefore, the learned
Trial Court has committed serious error of law while scrutinizing the
evidence available on record led down by both the parties in right
perspective and arrived at wrong conclusion.
39 | P a g e
2026:JHHC:26309
26. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby set
aside.
27. This appeal is allowed .
28. Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
29. The appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of bail
bond and sureties are also discharged.
30. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the trial Court records be
sent back immediately to the concerned Trial Court for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 31/08/2026
Rahul- NAFR
Uploaded On: 01/09/2026
40 | P a g e