NIRANJAN KHATUA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the accused appellant against the judgement dated 15-1-1983 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur, convicting him under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of on month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months and further convicting him under Section 161, I.P.C without imposing any separate sentence thereunder.

(2.) The prosecution case may be briefly stated as follows : The appellant was serving as a Lowe Division Clerk in the office of the Employment Exchange, Dhenkanal, during the relevant period. The complainant (P.W. 4) got himself registered in the Employment Ex. change. In January, 1979 some posts of labourers fell vacant in the Spinning Mill at Talbarkoti and the date of interview for filling up those posts was fixed on 30th April, 1979. The complainant was anxious to get one of those posts and so on 17-4-1979 he approached the accused for the issue of a call card when the accused had demanded of him to pay him a sum of Rs. 10/- for issuing the call card and when the complainant feeling aggrieved by the demand of the bribe reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur on 18-4-1978 and the complainant's report against the accused was treated as the F.I.R. (Ext. 6) in the case. On the basis of the F.I.R. as directed by the S.P., Vigilance, R.N. Mohapatra, the Inspector of Vigilance, took up the investigation of the case and decided to lay a trap for catching the accused redhanded. On the morning of 19-4-1979 the Vigilance Officers, namely, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 6 and the Magistrate P.W. 1 assembled in the D.I.B. Office, Dhenkanal, and the complainant and the accompanying witness P.W. 5 also came there. In the presence of the others, the complainant stated the facts of the case and produced Rs. 20/- comprising of two five rupees notes and one ten rupee note (M.Os. V, VI and VII) which he proposed to give as a bribe to the accused for issuing two call cards, one for him and the other for Pramod Kumar Sahu. The three currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and then given to the complainant with instructions to pay the same to the accused on his demand. The I.O. drew up the preparation report Ext. 1 stating about all the preliminary steps taken for trapping the accused. As earlier decided, the complainant and the accompanying witness P.W. 6 proceeded ahead to the office of the accused and the other members of the trap party including one Rabinarayan, L.D.C., Judicial Section of the Collectorate, and the D.S.P., Vigilance, followed them and took up their position near the Employment Exchange Office and waited for the prearranged signal from P.W. 5. As soon as the accused saw the complainant, he came out of his room on to the verandah of the office and then demanded the bribe amount from the complainant when the complainant gave him the three tainted currency notes stating that he wanted to have his call card as well as the call card of Pramod Kumar Sahu. The accused received the three currency notes and kept them in his pant pocket and soon thereafter P.W. 5 gave the prearranged signal to the other members of the trap party and on seeing the signal all of them rushed into the room of the accused and then the I.C., disclosing his identity, charged the accused that he accepted the bribe amount. Then the hand wash and the pocket wash of the accused with sodium carbonate solution were taken when the solution turned pink. The accused produced the tainted currency notes from his left side pant pocket and the same were seize by the I.O. under the seizure list Ext. 2. The Magistrate found that the numbers on the G. C. notes recovered from the accused tallied with the numbers earlier noted by him on a chit at the preparatory stage of the trap. On completion of the investigation, after obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecuting the accused, the charge-sheet was submitted.

(3.) The accused pleaded that he never demanded any bribe from the complainant at any time. According to him, the complainant as well as some of the vigilance officers had approached the accused for registration of the names of several candidates, even without their complying with the necessary formalities and as he was not prepared to go out of the way to register their names, they bore grudge against him and foisted this false case. D.W. 1 was examined by the accused in support of his plea.