PANCHANAN ROUT Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18-6-1983 of the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur, convicting the accused-appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months and further convicting him under Section 161, I.P.C. as well without imposing any separate sentence thereunder.

(2.) The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as follows : The appellant was serving as the Inspector of Police, Plant Site Police Station, Rourkela, from 19-2- 1979. P.W.9 Md. Munna was doing iron scrap business since about 10 to 12 years prior to the date of occurrence and the licence of the business stood in the name of his nephew Md. Sabaj. On 3-3-1979 the appellant with his police staff raided the business premises of P.W. 9, seized scrap materials from the premises, arrested P.W. 9 and forwarded him to Court. On 5-3-1979 P.W.9 was released on bail. On 13-3-1979 the appellant called P.W.9 to the police station through a constable and P. W.9 met the appellant at the police station between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. when the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from him to submit a final report in the case. After some bargain between the parties, P. W.9 agreed to pay a sum of Rs.500/ -to the appellant within a week's time at his quarters. On 20-3- 1979 P.W.9 paid the appellant a sum of Rs. 200/- at his quarters and promised to pay him the balance sum of Rs. 300/ - within 2 or 3 days. On 21-3-1979 as P.W. 9 was about to transport scrap iron in a truck to Raipur, S.I. Sri Pradhan of Plant Sita Police Station detained the truck and took it to the police station. On coming to know about it P.W.9 went to the police station and on seeing him the appellant directed his staff to put him in the lock-up. After some time, the appellant called P.W.9 to his room and demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000/ -from him threatening him that in case he did not pay the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- he would not only arrest him but also seize the truck with the goods. P.W. 9 went home and brought Rs. 1,000/- and paid it to the appellant whereupon he released the truck and the goods. At that time the appellant reminded him about the balance sum of Rs.300/- which he had promised to pay on 20-3-1979 and then P.W.9 told him that he would pay the amount within 2 to 3 days and then the accused threatened him that in case he did not pay the amount of Rs. 300/-, as promised, he would submit a charge-sheet against him in the earlier case. P.W. 9 returned home and decided to report against the appellant to the Vigilance Police to avoid future harassment from the appellant. On 22-3-1979 P.W. 9 went to the Vigilance Office, Rourkela and met P.W. 10 Banamali Das, Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Rourkela, and made an oral report against the appellant which was reduced into writing by P.W. 10 and the same was subsequently treated as the F.I.R. in the case (Ext.14). As the said report was sent to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur, he directed the registration of a case and further directed P.W. 10 to lay a trap for catching the appellant red-handed. On 23-3-1979 D.S.P., Vigilance (P.W. 4), S.J. K.C. Jena (P.W. 7), P.W. 10, the Executive Magistrate (P.W. 5), P.W.9, the complainant, and one Banamali Ray and the Supply Supervisor Pitabas Misra assembled at the Vigilance Squad Office at Rourkela. After making the necessary preparations for laying the trap, all the above named persons who assembled there, except P.W. 7, proceeded to the Plant Site Police Station for laying the trap at about 8 p.m. Though the members of the trap party waited till 9 p.m., as the appellant was not available at the police station, they could not lay the trap and so after taking a decision that they would be laying the trap on the following day evening they left the place. On 24-3-1979 at about 8 p.m. P.Ws. 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10 and one Banamali Ray assembled at the squad office and as the Supply Supervisor Pitabas Misra had fallen ill, in his place P.W.1 Dambarudhar Rath was called and asked to assist the trap party. The complainant narrated the facts of his case before the others who assembled there and produced the three hundred rupee G.C. notes before them which he proposed to give as a bribe to the appellant. P.W. 5 noted the number of the G.C. notes (M.Os. I, II and III) on a piece of paper and kept it with him. The three currency notes after being treated with phenolphthalein powder were given to P.W. 9. The accompanying witness Banamali Ray was instructed to accompany P.W. 9 to witness the payment of the bribe money by P.W. 9 to the appellant and to over-hear the conversation that would take place between them at that time and he was further instructed to give a signal by lighting a cigarette to indicate to the other members of the trap party that the bribe money was accepted by the appellant. P.W. 10 prepared the preparation report (Ext. 1) containing all the preparatory steps taken for laying the trap. Thereafter all the persons assembled there, except P.W. 7, proceeded to the Plant Site Police Station in two jeeps. The members of the trap party stopped their jeep at a place close to the Plant Site Police Station and thereafter constable B. Sahu was sent to the police station to find out if the appellant was present in his room and the constable after going to the police station returned and informed the trap party that the appellant was present at the police station. Then P.W. 9, the decoy, and the accompanying witness proceeded head on foot and reached the police station, while the other members of the trap party remained at a place by the side of the compound wall of the police station and from there the verandah of the police station was visible. While the accompanying witness stood below the verandah. P.W. 9 met a constable on the verandah and learnt from him that the appellant was inside his room with S. I. Sri Pradhan. Within 2 to 3 minutes S. I. Sri Pradhan came out of the room of the appellant. Thereafter P.W. 9 sent word through the constable intimating the appellant that he wanted to meet him. The constable went to the room of the appellant and informed him about the arrival of the complainant P.W. 9.Thereafter the appellant came out to the verandah and enquired from the complainant if he had brought the amount of Rs. 300/- and as the latter replied in the affirmative and then on the demand of the appellant, the complainant paid him the sum of Rs. 300/-. The appellant kept the hundred rupee G. C. notes in his shirt pocket and then entered into his room. Benamali Ray then gave the pre-arranged signal by lighting a match stick whereafter the other members of the trap party rushed to the room of the accused. The D.S.P. (P.W.4) and the I.O. (P.W. 10) saw the payment of the bribe money by the decoy to the appellant. On their way to the room of the appellant, the complainant also told them in a low voice that the appellant had accepted the bribe money and kept it in his shirt pocket. The members of the trap party, on entering the room of the appellant, saw him engaged in writing something and then P.W. 10 disclosed to the appellant the identity of the members of the trap party and demanded of the appellant to produce the sum of Rs. 300/ - which he had accepted as bribe. The appellant became perturbed and enquired from them as to who the complainant was and as to how a trap could be laid without the complainant. P.W. 10 told him that the complainant was there. At this stage as the appellant got up and attempted to go outside, he was prevented from doing so and P.W. 10 insisted on taking the appellant's hand wash. Then the appellant brought out from his pocket the three currency notes of one hundred rupee denomination, some other currency notes of smaller denomination, some coins and a piece of paper and threw them on the floor and thereafter shouted "Pahara Pahara", whereupon 7 to 8 police officers entered his room and started assaulting the Vigilance Officers. As directed by the appellant, P.W. 10 and Daftary Sri Behera were put inside the lockup. The D.S.P. (P.W 4) somehow managed to escape and ran to the Superintendent of Police, Rourkela. Some time thereafter S.P., Rourkela (P.W. 6) along with D.S.P. (P.W. 4) arrived at the police station and directed the release of P.W. 10 and Daftari Sri Behera from the lock-up and permitted the I. O. (P.W. 10) to proceed with the investigation of the case. The Magistrate (P.W. 5) picked up the hundred rupee currency notes lying on the floor and found that their numbers tallied with the numbers noted by him earlier on a piece of paper. The tainted currency notes were seized under Ext. 2. The hand wash and the pocket wash of the appellant was taken and as the solution in each case turned pink the same were preserved in two separate bottles and the same were seized under Ext. 10. P.W. 10 prepared the detection report Ext. 3 and after the same was read over and explained to the witnesses they all signed. The appellant gave a written report to P.W.6 complaining against P.W. 10 and others alleging that they tried to implicate him in a false trap case. P.Ws. 4 and 10 also made two separate reports to the S.P. (P.W. 6) regarding the occurrence which took place in the room of the appellant. On completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellant on 5-6-1980.

(3.) The defence case may be briefly stated as follows : The appellant had not seized the goods from the premises of P.W. 9 on 3-3-1979 nor he had arrested P. W. 9 and he was not the I.O. in that case. He never demanded or accepted any amount as bribe from P. W. 9 on any day. The appellant did not demand Rs. 1,000/- from P.W 9 on 13-3-1979 nor was there any agreement on that day that P.W. 9 would pay him a bribe of Rs. 500/-. The allegation that P.W. 9 paid a bribe of Rs. 200/- on 20-3-1979 is false and baseless. Likewise the allegation that P.W. 9 paid the appellant Rs. 1,000/- on 21-3-79 for the release of his truck is equally false and baseless. As the appellant had initiated some criminal cases against P.W 9, the latter was inimically disposed towards him. As the appellant had earlier turned down the request of P.W. 10 to manipulate the investigation of a case in which he was the I.O., P.W. 10 and the other Vigilance staff bore grudge against him. So P.Ws. 9 and 10 have falsely foisted the case against him.