Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 22 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ Raja Ram, S/o late Behari Bhagat, resident of village-Rampur, Police Station-Bankatta, District-Deoria (U.P.) ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the Vigilance : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Spl. PP, Vigilance. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to RI for two years and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of which further RI for two years and two years respectively by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna in Special Case. No. 33 of 1990 by a judgment dated 28.02.1995. 2. The prosecution case is that the appellant who was the Circle Officer, Masrakh in Saran District demanded bribe from P.W. 13, Harikishore Singh for a favourable report with regard to an inquiry pending against the father of the complainant. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe money. After the complainant made this report before the Vigilance Department the matter was got verified through P.W. 8 a shadow witness. On the fateful day the appellant was caught after he demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 100/- which was recovered from his possession. 2 3. The prosecution in all to prove its case examined fifteen witnesses out of whom P.W. 2 and P.W. 10 are tendered witnesses. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 9, P.W. 12, P.W. 14 and P.W. 15 are on the point of the factum of occurrence whereas P.W. 13 is the complainant himself. P.W. 8 is the shadow witness who proved the fact that on the previous day as well as on the date of occurrence the appellant had demanded bribe from P.W. 13, the complainant. 4. On going through the evidence of all the witnesses there is no manner of doubt that the appellant had demanded bribe from P.W. 13 in the presence of P.W. 8 and also accepted the same in his presence on the fateful date and the factum of recovery has been well proved by the rest of the witnesses who constituted the members of the trap team. 5. Under the circumstances this Court finds no reason for interfering with the conviction of the appellant. However, since it took seven years in trial and another sixteen years for the appeal to be heard and under these exceptional circumstances the period already undergone is sufficient for the conviction of the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 17th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-