IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29126 of 2008 PANCHANAND PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3. 24.11.2008 Heard Sri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Advocate for the Vigilance Department and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner who was serving as a Civil Surgeon in the district of Sheohar is in custody in Vigilance P.S.Case No.24 of 2008 under Sections 7, 13(2)and 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The allegation is that the petitioner was demanding a bribe of Rs.30,000/- for making the payment of the bills of the complainant’s organization for rendered out sourcing services of cleaning and maintaining the building and premises of the District Hospital, Sheohar. The total amount payable to the complainant’s organization was Rs.1,41,314/- only and the same was not being paid as a result of which the complainant approached the officer-in-charge of Vigilance Bureau and accordingly a preliminary verification was held and on being satisfied, the trap party was constituted on the day of - 2 - verification. The complainant had paid Rs.2,000/- out of the total demanded bribe- amount of Rs.30,000/- and on the day of holding of trap the amount of Rs.28,000/- was paid to the petitioner which has been detailed in the trap recovery memo. The paid amount was recovered as per details appearing at page-22 of the brief and the fingers of the petitioner was dipped into phenolphthalein upon which positive signs appeared. The contention is that the petitioner had joined just in February, 2008 and the complaint was lodged in May, 2008 about the non-payment of dues of the amount paid to the complainant and demand of bribe. It is further contended that the allegation against the petitioner that he used to issue bearer cheque so as to getting amount in cash after encashment of the cheque is also not substantiated. The contention further is that the petitioner was at the verge of retirement and on account of being trapped in a false case the petitioner stands losing his further career prospects, besides, facing a very tough financial time on account of being in custody or due to the - 3 - initiation of a departmental proceeding against him. The learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department drew the attention of the Court to some part of the memo of evidence which was submitted by the Vigilance Bureau in the court below and has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that a cheque was created on 9.4.2008 of the value of Rs.1,41,334/- but the petitioner did not put his signature over it and after about one month the petitioner on 6.5.2008 cancelled the cheque and issued two cheques out of the which, one was of the value of Rs.50,000/- and it was a bearer cheque, the other was an account payee cheque. The rules required that the payment had either to be made through account payee cheque or through bank draft. It was further contended that after the arrest of the petitioner and recovery of the bribe money the official residence of the petitioner was searched and Rs.67,000/- was recovered from there along with other documents of huge financial investments. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of the court to some of the annexures - 4 - to submit that in fact the petitioner was pulling up the complainant for either not performing the part of his contract or being slack or indifferent towards his contractual obligation which was within the performance of his duty and it appeared to the complainant that there were all probabilities that his contract could be terminated and, as such, he put the petitioner in deep trouble by brining the officers of the Vigilance Department into his collusion. The complainant Sri Md. Muzaffar Imam was running a non-governmental organization, named Mahasweta Gramin Mahila Seva Sadan, and he was engaged in out sourcing and thereby in cleaning and maintaining the hospital in Sheohar. He could not be bearing such a clot with the officers of the state specially in the rank of the A.D.G or the Superintendent of Vigilance so as to bringing them in his collusion for laying a trap and dragging the petitioner on false charges. The recoveries are there and the circumstance of creating a cheque, not signing the same and subsequently concealing it so as to issuing two cheques, one through - 5 - bearer and the other account payee, indicated as to what at the petitioner could be. The petitioner might be facing some real difficulties in his career and life, but being a public servant he was seeking gratification for doing the service in discharging his official duty. Other aspect of the case which comes into my mind is any public post is held by a public servant in trust of the public. It is supposed that the sanctity of the post is maintained and the man who acts as the officer of the State earns the public good will and confidence. The petition appears not conducting himself in the highest traditions of his service. Petition is dismissed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )