JADUNATH KHATUA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the Code) and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for each of the two offences with a direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution was that on 19.5.1976 the appellant, then serving as Revenue Inspector of the Nagram Circle in the Tahsil of Balasore, accepted on demand Rs. 50/ - (fifty) from Prosanna Kumar Jena (P.W. 6) as illegal gratification as a motive for expediting a report called for from him (appellant) by the Tahsildar and Revenue Officer, Balasore, in Orissa Land Reforms Case No. 4 of 1975 which had been started by the father of P.W. 6. After it was agreed on 17.5.1976 that P.W. 6 would pay Rs. 50/ - on 19.5.1976, the latter made a report (Ext. 11) to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance. stationed at Balasore and as authorised by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack, the Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 12) took up the investigation of the case with the assistance of another Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 9) deputed from Cuttack. On 19.5.1976, P.W. 12 made preparation for laying a trap and the preparation report (Ext. 13) was drawn up in the presence of P.Ws. 6 and 8 (Executive Magistrate) besides others and P.W. 9 made a demonstration as to how the sodium carbonate solution in contact with phenolphthalein powder would turn pink in colour. His hand -wash was collected in a bottle (M.O. II). The marked five Government currency notes of the denomination of rupees ten (M.O. I series) were processed with phenolphthalein powder put inside an envelope and were kept inside the chest pocket of P.W. 6 who was instructed to hand over the money to the appellant on his demand and the overhearing witness (P.W. 7) was instructed to hear the conversation between P.W. 6 and the appellant, watch the payment and signal the acceptance of bribe. Then all the members of the trap party proceeded to Nagram, the headquarters of the appellant and on learning that he had gone to the Tahsil Office at Balasore, the members of the trap party proceeded to that office at Balasore. P.Ws. 6 and 7 went ahead to the Tahsil Office and the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 8, 9 and 12 took positions at different places, P.W. 6 met the appellant on the Verandah of the Tehsil Office near the Nizarat and handed over M.O. I series to the appellant on his demand. Some time thereafter, the members of the trap party reached that place and on their demand for production of the money received from P.W. 6, the appellant, after some hesitation, brought out M.O. I series from inside his right pant pocket and dropped on the ground, M.O. I series were picked up by P.W. 8, the Executive Magistrate, who compared the numbers of the notes previously recorded in the preparation report (Ext. 13) and the numbers tallied. The hand -wash of the appellant, his pant pocket wash and the handwash of the Executive Magistrate, who compared the numbers of the currency notes were collected in three bottles (M.Os. III to V). The detection report (Ext. 18) was prepared by P.W. 12. In the course of the investigation, P.W. 12 examined the witnesses and after obtaining sanction from the Collector and District Magistrate, Balasore, as per Ext. 21, the sanction order placed a charge -sheet against the appellant who stood trial being charged with the aforesaid offences.

(3.) THE appellant admitted that at the relevant time, he was functioning as the Revenue Inspector at Nagram in the Balasore Tahsil and that he had been asked by the Tahsildar to submit a report in Orissa Land Reforms Case No. 4 of 1975. He had, however, denied to have received illegal gratification from P.W. 6 for expediting the submission of the report. His defence was that P.W. 11, the Nazir of Tahsil Office, had borrowed some money previously from him and had asked him to come to the Tahsil Office on 19.5.1976 to receive the money from him. Accordingly, the appellant came to the Tahsil Office at Balasore on 19.5.1976 and received Rs. 50/ - (M.O. I series) from the Nazir and this amount was recovered from him by the Vigilance Officers. The further case of the appellant was that he had taken 110 rent receipt books from the Tahsil Office for the year 1973 -74 when the Nazir was in charge of these receipt books and after March, 1974, he had returned 9 unused receipt books and some time after 101 used books of which one book was cyclostyled and not printed. P.W. 11 had endorsed in the register (R.11) to have received 101 used books and had asked the appellant to bring the register to him to effect necessary corrections therein regarding the receipt of the used books in order to avoid future audit objections. As P.W. 11 had asked him repeatedly to bring the register, he (appellant) had requested P.W. 11 to repay the loan taken from him. P.W. 11 had insisted that the appellant should first bring the register to him for corrections and he sent words repeatedly to him to get the register. Two or three days prior to 19.5.1976, P.W. 11 had asked him to meet him in the office to receive his loan amount. It was also the case of the appellant that P.W. 11 and P.W. 3, a clerk in the Tahsil Office, had requested the appellant to expedite the report in the Orissa Land Reforms Case in which the father of P.W. 6 was concerned. The appellant had asserted that both P.Ws. 6 and 11 had joined hands to falsely implicate him in the case. The appellant had not examined any witness on his behalf.