STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SIBA PRASAD MODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision, is by the State of Orissa for enhancement of the sentence passed on the opposite party by the Sessions Judge bf Cuttack, on appeal, in a case of attempt at bribery.

(2.) The opposite party is a Marwari merchant of Cuttack town. On 2-9-47 Sri Narendra Kishore Mohonti (P. W. 1), a Sub-Inspector of Police (C. I. D. Enforcement), seized certain incriminating account books from the shop of one Dwarakanath Bajaj, a retail cloth dealer, and started investigation in a case of black-marketing. On the next day the opposite party who had some previous acquaintanceship with the Sub-Inspector met him in the Collectorate compound and after making general enquiries about the case against the said Bajaj requested him to drop the case. The S. I. further stated that the opposite party offered bribe to him if the case would be hushed up. Thereupon the S. I. State of Orissa vs. Siba Prasad Moda (21.11.1950 -ORIHC) Page 2 of 4 (21.11.1950 -ORIHC) Page 2 of 4 arranged for a trap and on 5-9-47 at about 9 p. m., the opposite party fell into the trap and was caught red-handed as soon as he offered bribe of Rs. 500/- to the S. I. in the latter's house. A Deputy Superintendent of police (P. W. 2), a 1st Class Magistrate (P. W. 4) and some other officials who lay concealed in the adjacent room at the time of offering the bribe rushed into the room and arrested the opposite party. The opposite party then tried to swallow up the currency notes which he had previously handed over to the S. I. But these were extracted from his mouth, though in a damaged condition.

(3.) On these facts the trying Magistrate had sentenced the opposite party to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment and reduced the sentence of fine to Rs. 200/- relying mainly on the reasons given in 'EMPEROR v. DIN-KAR RAO', AIR 1933 All 513, for passing such a lenient sentence. The learned Sessions Judge held that the invitation to offer bribe came from the S.I. in the first instance and that consequently though the opposite party cannot escape conviction a somewhat lenient sentence might suffice.