IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50065 of 2008 RAMESH KUMAR RAMAN Versus STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH VIGILANCE ----------- 2/ 19.1.2009 A rickshaw puller died after falling from the train. His wife was in dire necessity of the death certificate. The brother of the deceased rickshaw puller applied for it. The petitioner was the clerk who was to initiate the file and issue the same. The brother of the deceased fatigued after running the office of the Municipal Corporation, Hajipur for the document. He did not get it. The poor man left for earning his livelihood and conveyed to the complainant Neelam Devi that she could contact a particular man of the locality so as to obtaining the document. The influence and clout of that particular man also did not yield any result. Ultimately, the lady met the present petitioner and the Headclerk. It was this petitioner who took aside the lady into his office and pointed out that if she could pay Rupees five hundred, the document could be issued to her. In spite of the lady being ready for paying up Rupees fifty, the petitioner could not be merciful to her. Ultimately, the lady appears contacting the Vigilance 2 Bureau and, accordingly, a trap was conducted after due verification of the allegation. The petitioner was found having received bribe amount of Rupees five hundred and the money was recovered as per trap memorandum and the recovery memo. The contention is that the poor clerk of the municipal corporation is languishing in jail since 4.9.2008. The contention further is that it might be that the petitioner was caught with the bribe money but the complicity could not be of the petitioner only. It could be of the Special Officer of the Municipal Corporation as also the Headclerk. The court does not reject the contention of the petitioner as regards the complicity in demanding bribe by the persons other than the petitioner. But, it has the evidence of paying up the money to the petitioner and recovery of a sum from him. Precisely, it is the petitioner who had to initiate file, get things done and issue the document. The petitioner does not deny that he was holding a public office and if one views the act as narrated above, one could simply say that demanding and accepting bribe money was the rule of conduct of the petitioner who could not perform his duty 3 without accepting gratification, considering that, the petition is dismissed. Anil/ ( Dharnidhar Jha,J )