The State (Ut Of Andaman And Nicobar Islands) v. Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH AND HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI CRA(DB)/3/2024 The State (UT of Andaman & Nicobar Islands) ... Appellant Vs.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh ... Respondent/Accused For the Appellant : Mr. Sumit Karmakar For the Respondent : Mr. Mohammed Tabraiz Hearing concluded on : July 30, 2025 Judgment delivered on : August 07, 2025 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.

1.

In the instant appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment dated 24th August, 2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands in connection with Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2015 arising out of Special Case No. 4 of 2014. By the impugned judgment learned Trial Court found the private respondent not guilty of the charges and acquitted him.

2.

It is submitted on behalf of learned advocate for the appellant that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence adduce on

behalf of the prosecution and acquitted the accused. It is also submitted that the prosecution was able to prove the charges levelled against the accused/private respondent with the help of convincing evidence on record.

3.

Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the fact of taking bribe was substantially proved by the prosecution. The bribe money was recovered from the possession of the private respondent. A sum of Rs.8,000/- was recovered from his possession. Phenolphthalein test of the money recovered from the possession of the appellant was conducted and the money was found to be trap money given by the complainant. It is submitted that in spite of such evidence on record, learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate such evidence and has acquitted the private respondent.

4.

Learned advocate for the appellant has also submitted that the case made out by the prosecution was sufficiently corroborated by the evidence led by the prosecution. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution established the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the private respondent was acquitted by the learned Trial Court without appreciating such evidence.

5.

It was also submitted on behalf of the learned advocate for the appellant that although PW.1 turned hostile nevertheless his signature on evidence cannot be thrown away. His signatures etc. were proved by such witness. Such facts were not taken into consideration by the Trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment.

6.

On the other hand, learned advocate representing the private respondent has submitted that the complainant of this case turned hostile. He did not support the case of the prosecution. It was submitted that since the person by whom the alleged bribe was demanded and paid has not supported the case of the prosecution, learned Trial Court rightly acquitted the private respondent. It is further submitted by learned advocate for the private respondent that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges levelled against the private respondent and as such, the private respondent was acquitted by the learned Trial Court upon appreciation the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Learned advocate for the private respondent supported the impugned judgment as justified and without any error.

7.

On March, 7, 2013, one Prabash Shardar lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Unit, Port Blair. It was stated in such written complaint that on November 20, 2012, the society was awarded the work for the repairing/maintenance of rural road from the house of Hari Krishna Kirtania to the house of Shri Sukhoranjan Gharami. Accordingly, the society started the said work in January, 2013 and completed it in February, 2013. After completion of the above work, the concerned Junior Engineer namely Rajesh Kumar Singh, i.e., the private respondent prepared a bill of an amount of Rs.2,74,000/-. Accordingly, the de facto complainant received a cheque of an amount of Rs.2,38,547/- for the aforesaid work.

8.

The written complaint also disclosed that earlier the private respondent demanded Rs.12,000/- as commission for preparing the bills. Since such demand could not be met, the private respondent demanded Rs.8,000/- towards commission and threatened that if the commission was not paid no bill would be prepared. On the basis of such written complaint Anti Corruption Police Station case No. 1/2013 dated March,7, 2013 under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was started against the private respondent. 9.

The police took up investigation and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections against the private respondent. Accordingly, on the basis of materials in the case diary charges under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the private respondent on August, 5, 2015. The private respondent pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. 10.

In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses. In addition, the prosecution also relied upon certain documentary as well as material evidence. The de facto complainant was examined as PW.1. In his cross examination, he stated that he was the President of Uttara Uneducated Unemployed Cooperative Society Limited which undertook work of the Panchayat as per work order. However, he stated that he did not know anything about the instant case. He knew the private respondent as a Junior

Engineer in Uttara Panchayat in the year 2013 and identified him in dock.

11.

PW.1 also stated that police called him at the Police Station on March,7,2013 and obtained his signature in some paper. His statement was not recorded by the police. He identified his signature on the written complaint which was marked as Exhibit 1/1. He also identified his signature on the handing over and taking over memo as well as documents in respect of pre-trap proceeding and recovery memo. He also identified his signature on the bottle stated to be right hand and left hand wash solution of the private respondent. He further identified his signature on the label attached to an envelope containing 16 Nos. of Rs.500/- Government currency notes. He however, failed to identify the currency notes.

12.

PW.1 was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross examination on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 stated that the Panchayat makes the payment of works undertaken by the society in pursuance of bill prepared by the Junior Engineer. The work by the society was undertaken from November, 2012 and the private respondent was the Junior Engineer of the Panchayat at the relevant time. He also stated that the society was awarded the work of construction of footpath from the house of Hari Krishna Kirtania to the house of Shri Sukhoranjan Gharami, which was completed between January and February, 2013. The bill for the aforesaid work was prepared by the private respondent and a cheque of Rs.2,38,547/- was

paid to the society. However, PW.1 denied that the written complaint was explained and read over to him or that the private respondent demanded bribe for clearing the bills. He also denied having made any written complaint or any statement before the police. 13.

In his cross examination on behalf of defence, PW.1 stated that he received all the cheques in respect of the work covered in this case and he had no grievance against the private respondent. He further stated in his cross examination that he signed on the papers at the Police Station and he did not sign any document, pay slip or label of the bottles. 14.

An official of the Personal Wing, Secretariat deposed as PW.2. He stated that on March, 7, 2013 he was directed by the Deputy Secretary (Personal) to accompany S. Ravindran of Anti Corruption Police Station. He accordingly went and met the Deputy Superintendent of Police at about 11:30 AM and on his direction he went to meet Inspector Daniel in connection with a trap at 12:30 AM. PW.2, thereafter accompanied the police team to Jirkatang at 12:30 PM and reached there by 2:00 PM. He then went to Kadamtala at 5:00 PM. At Kadamtala PW.2 and the police team went to a gate near a jetty and met PW.1 with 2/3 other persons. From there PW.2 and the police team and PW.1 went to the house of one Bawali at Kadamtala. A pre-trap plan was prepared at the house of said Bawali. 16 nos. of Government currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were taken from PW.1. The currency notes were tested with Phenolphthalein powder and kept in an envelope and the said envelope was handed over to PW.1. PW.2 also stated that after these

preparations they proceeded towards the residence of the accused R.K. Singh at Kadamtala. PW.1 along with one Anjan went inside the quarters. Anjan was directed to give signal whereas PW.2 and the police team kept waiting outside.

15.

PW.2 further stated that after the transaction, Anjan gave the pre-decided signal and thereafter, PW.2 and the police team went inside the house and found R.K. Singh counting the notes. The police team caught hold of the accused. The accused was directed to dip both his hands in separate glasses of water whereupon the water turned pink. Thereafter, the said water was collected in two separate bottles which were sealed and labelled and the recovered currency notes were also sealed in an envelope. The accused who was a Junior Engineer of Kadamtala Panchayat was brought to the police station with the seized articles. PW.2 identified the private respondent in Court. 16.

PW.2 further stated in his deposition that he was present during the pre-trap proceeding held at Kadamtala when PW.1 handed over 16 nos. of currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each to the TLO. At the instruction of TLO, PW.2 dipped his finger into a water of glass, but the colour of the water did not change. Thereafter, the TLO handed over the 26 nos. of currency notes to one Sub-Inspector for sprinkling some Phenolphthalein powder over it. The TLO added some chemical in the glass of water. After that the TLO handed over the tainted notes to PW.2. Thereafter, PW.2 was again asked to dip his finger into the water and in doing so, the water turned pink.

17.

He further stated that TLO handed over the tainted note to PW.1 for keeping the same in the envelope and thereafter, they proceeded to the quarters of the private respondent. PW.2 further stated that upon entering the quarters of the private respondent, he was found counting the notes. Inspector Daniel caught hold of both hands of the private respondent by holding his wrist. He also took the tainted notes from the hands of the private respondent. One constable was directed to prepare a solution of water by adding Phenolphthalein powder. Inspector Daniel made the private respondent dip both his hands into the solution resulting in the colour of the solution turning pink. The said solution was preserved in two bottles which were sealed and labelled. The currency notes were also tallied and were sealed in an envelope. Thereafter, the private respondent was arrested. 18.

PW.2 proved his signature on the handing over memo (Exhibit 2/2), pre-trap proceeding (Exhibit 3/2) and on the label pasted on the envelope containing the currency notes. He identified the currency notes as well. He also identified the signatures on the label pasted on the two bottles and on the recovery note. In his cross examination, PW.2 stated that the documents such as pre-trap memo, post-trap memo and the labels in which he put his signature were prepared at Kadamtala police station.

19.

The Superintendent of DHS, Port Blair deposed as PW.3. He stated that on March 7, 2013 in terms of a direction of Assistant Secretary, he went to Anti Corruption Unit at 9:00 AM and met the

Dy.SP of Anti Corruption. Thereafter, he was asked to come after 12:00 noon to meet Inspector Daniel. He again went to the Anti Corruption Unit at about 12:00 noon and with PW.2 and Inspector Daniel proceeded to Kadamtala. At about 5:00 PM they reached Kadamtala and met PW.1. Thereafter, they all went to the house of Jyotirmay Bawali, where PW.1 handed over 16 nos. of currency notes of denomination Rs.500/- each to Inspector Daniel. Inspector Daniel put some powder on the said notes and the demonstration was conducted. The numbers of the currency notes were noted down. Thereafter, the currency notes were kept in an envelope and handed over to PW.1. 20.

PW.3 also stated that after such preparation the team proceeded towards the house of the private respondent. PW.1 and one Anjan Kumar Roy went inside his house, whereas the others kept waiting outside. After sometime, PW.1 gave signal whereupon the trap team immediately rushed into the house of the private respondent. PW.3 stated that when he went inside the house of the private respondent, he saw Inspector Daniel holding his hand and thereafter he was taken to Kadamtala police station. According to PW.3, seizure list was prepared on seizure of the currency notes and the solution containing Phenolphthalein wherein he signed. He identified his signature on the recovery memo, envelope containing the currency notes and bottles containing the solution.

21.

PW.3 was declared hostile by the prosecution. In his cross examination on behalf of the prosecution, PW.3 admitted that he made

statement to the effect that 16 nos. of currency notes of Rs.500/- each were handed over by PW.1 and the numbers were noted in the taking over memo. He proved his signatures on the handing over and taking over memos as well as the pre-trap proceeding which were prepared at the residence of one Jyotirmay Bawali.

22.

The then Pradhan of Uttara Gram Panchayat was examined as PW.4. He stated that on March 15, 2013 at about 11:30 AM, Ishwar Rao, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat met him and obtained his signature on a list. He was informed that some documents were to be handed over to the police. PW.4 asked for the documents, but the said documents were never handed over to police in his presence. He proved his signature on the seizure memo dated March 15, 2013. 23.

A member of Zilla Parishad, Kadamtala constituency was examined as PW.5. He stated that on March 6,2013, some Singh was the Junior Engineer of Uttara Gram Panchayat. PW.5, however, never did any official work during the tenure of Singh. He, however, claimed to know the said Junior Engineer whom he identified in Court as the private respondent. PW.5 was also declared hostile by the prosecution and in his cross examination on behalf of the prosecution, PW.5 denied having made any statement before the police.

24.

The Inspector, who conducted the trap, was examined as PW.6. He stated that on March 6, 2013, he received an information over telephone from one Jyotirmay Bawali to the effect that one Junior Engineer, i.e., the private respondent demanded Rs.12,000/- as bribe

from PW.1 for maintenance and repairing of rural road work of Uttara, Kadamtala.

PW.6 accordingly informed the matter to the Superintendent of Police of Anti Corruption Unit and as per his direction he formed a trap team consisting of two independent witnesses PW.2 and PW.3. The team proceeded to Uttara, Kadamtala on March 07, 2013. They reached Uttara at about 12:30 PM on the said date and met PW.1. There was a pre-trap meeting at the house of PW.5. In his deposition, he has described the steps taken by him. He has stated that a pre-trap meeting was held, proceeding was recorded, thereafter, PW.1 is set to have handed over currency notes to him. He treated the currency notes with Phenolphthalein, kept them in an envelope and handed them over to PW.1. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the residence of the private respondent. PW.6 has also averred that the money was handed over to the private respondent by PW.

1 in presence of PW.10 and on their signal, the trap team entered the house of the private respondent and caught him with the currency notes. PW.6 further stated that the private respondent was asked to dip his hands in the solution which turned pink. He also described that after such proceeding, the currency notes as well as the pink solution were sealed and labelled and were seized by him. PW.6 has also proved the pre-trap proceeding, the handing over memo and taking over memo etc.

25.

A police personnel deposed as PW.7. He stated that he was a member of the raiding team as per the direction of Inspector Daniel on

March 07, 2013 at about 9:00 AM. He has corroborated the evidence of PW.6 with regard to raid conducted by the Anti Corruption Police Station at the residence of the private respondent. He has also corroborated that there was a pre-trap meeting at the house of PW.5. Thereafter, the raiding team went to the residence of the private respondent and caught him with tainted currency notes which he took as bribe from PW.1. PW.7 proved his signatures on several documents. 26.

The Upa-Pradhan of Uttara Gram Panchayat was examined as PW.8. He stated that on March 15, 2013 two officers from Anti Corruption Police Station came to the Panchayat and asked for certain documents from the Panchayat Secretary. The Panchayat Secretary handed over those documents such as requisite letter, acceptance letter, note sheet, list of final bill and cheque receipt. The said documents were seized under a seizure list. PW.8 proved his signature on the seizure list. He also identified the seized documents. 27.

PW.9 is the Secretary of Kadamtala, Gram Panchayat. He has corroborated the statements of PW.8. He supplied the documents asked for by the Anti Corruption officers. He proved his signature on the seizure list by which the documents were seized. He also identified the documents supplied by him to the Anti Corruption Department. 28.

The Secretary of Uttara Uneducated Unemployed Cooperative Society Limited deposed as PW.10. In his deposition, PW.10 stated that on November 01, 2012 his society had undertaken work pertaining to repairing the rural road of Uttara Panchayat. The said work was

completed and thereafter, the society received payment for the said work. He however, could not say the quantum of such payment. PW.10 also stated that he signed certain documents as per direction of police. He did not make any complain, nor could he say as to who filed the complaint. PW.10 was declared hostile by the prosecution and in his cross examination on behalf of the prosecution, he denied having made any statement before the police. He however, proved his signatures on several documents.

29.

The Investigating Officer of this case deposed as PW.11. He has described in his deposition the steps taken by him during the course of investigation of this case. He arrested the accused, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan which he proved. He also seized documents relating to the tender in question. He further stated that he sent the solution to Forensic Scientific Laboratory, Kolkata for chemical examination and received its report. He also obtained sanction for prosecution and on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the private respondent under Section 7/13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In his cross examination, PW.10 stated that upon examination of documents, he found that the payment in respect of the bills were already made. 30.

Upon completion of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the private respondent was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the private respondent denied having any knowledge about the envelope containing the tainted cash. He pleaded

innocence and claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case. He, however, declined to adduce any defence witness. 31.

From the materials on record it transpires that the prosecution came up with a case that the Cooperative Society, of which the de facto complainant was a member, was allotted certain construction work. It is alleged that upon completion of such work, the private respondent demanded Rs.12,000/- as bribe for preparing and passing the bills for the aforesaid work. Later on the demand was diminished to Rs.8,000/- for the aforesaid preparation and passing of the bills. 32.

The de facto complainant, i.e., P.W.1 lodged a complaint in this regard with the Community Corporation Department. On receipt of such complaint, the Community Corporation authorities held a pre-trap meeting and proceeded to execute a trap for nabbing the private respondent who was then holding the post of Junior Engineer in the concerned area. According to the prosecution, a pretrap meeting was held. Preparations were made. P.W.1 provided the money in the denomination of Rs.500/- currency notes which was handed over to the head of the trap team. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, the team moved to the residence of the private respondent. The transaction of offering and accepting the bribe by P.W.1 and the private respondent respectively took place.

33.

After getting appropriate signal the team apprehended the private respondent with the currency notes which were allegedly tested and the

test report was found positive. Following this, the private respondent was arrested for demanding and taking bribe.

34.

At the time of deposition, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. He denied having made any complaint with regard to the demand of bribe by the private respondent. In his deposition, P.W.1 categorically stated that he was made to sign on certain documents by the police. He had no knowledge of any demand of bribe on the part of the private respondent. Although he proved his signature on several documents like written complaint, giving and taking Memo. and pretrap proceeding, however, at the time of deposition he stated that he signed on such documents as requested by the Police. He also stated that he was called at the Police Station and was made to put his signature on such documents.

35.

According to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, following the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a pre-trap meeting was held at the house of P.W.5. P.W.5, in his deposition did not mention any such pretrap meeting held at his house. He has stated that he came to know about the anti-corruption case against the private respondent since it was initiated during his tenure as a member of the Zilla Parishad. He, however, stated that he was not interrogated by the police. So also P.W.1 stated that his statement was not recorded by the Police. Both P.W.1 and P.W.5 were declared hostile by prosecution. 36.

The evidence of the prosecution goes to show that after the trap meetings, the trap team accompanied by P.W.1 went to the residence of

the private respondent. P.W.1 was carrying the money which was supposed to be paid to the private respondent as bribe. Almost all the prosecution witnesses have stated that P.W.1 while going inside the residence of the private respondent for paying the bribe, was accompanied by P.W.10. P.W.10 has denied having given a signal following which the trap team entered the residence of the private respondent and nabbed him with the alleged bribe money. P.W.10 also did not support the case of the prosecution. He did not state in his deposition that he accompanied P.W.1 into the residence of the private respondent. He has also not identified any money so paid by P.W.1 to the private respondent. To the contrary, P.W.10 stated in his deposition that he was taken to Police Station where he was asked by the police to sign on certain documents. He has stated that he did not lodge any complaint or he could not say as to who lodged the complaint. 37.

According to the case of the prosecution, the bribe money allegedly recovered from the possession of the private respondent was seized by the anti-corruption police. It is the specific case of the prosecution that both the hands of the private respondent were dipped into the phenolphthalein solution immediately after the tainted money was recovered from his possession. On dipping the hands in the solution, the solution tuned pink. According to P.W.11, the recovered money as well as phenolphthalein solution were sent for chemical examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. P.W.11 stated in his examination that he received the report from FSL. Although P.W.11

stated that on completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet in the case against the private respondent, he did not speak of the report received by him from the FSL. Such report was also not proved in trial. 38.

In such circumstances, it can be concluded that the prosecution has not been able to prove that any bribe was ever demanded by or paid to the private respondent for preparing and passing the bill in respect of the work allotted to Uttara Tented Unemployed Cooperative Society Ltd. The prosecution has also not proved that any complaint in this regard was lodged by P.W.1. In fact, P.W.11 has categorically admitted in his deposition that in course of investigation of the case he ascertained that the entire money in respect of the construction work allotted to the Cooperative Society was already paid. There appears to be no occasion for the private respondent to demand bribe for preparing and passing the bills due to such society.

39.

In the light of the discussion made hereinbefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment acquitting the private respondent. The same is hereby affirmed.

40.

Accordingly, CRA (DB)/3/2024 is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs.

41.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties after compliance of all required formalities. I agree.

(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)