STATE OF ORISSA Vs. BHARAT CHANDRA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 31.7.1996 passed by Shri D. Barik, Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 32 of 1994 acquitting the respondent of the charges under section 13 (1) (d) read with sections 13 (2) and 7 of the Prevention of Corrup - tion Act, 1988.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 6.8.1993, the informant - Golak Ch. Biswal (P.W. 5), who was working as a Munshi under the owner of the truck bearing registration No. O.R.H. -5639, lodged a report (Ext. 7) before the vigilance police to the effect that the accused - respondent, who was working as head clerk in the office of the R.T.O., Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna, demanded a bribe of L 500/ - for issuance of five years permit in respect of the above vehicle. On receipt of the said report, a trap was laid, the accused -respondent was caught and after completion of the investigation charge -sheet was filed against the accused - respondent.

(3.) CHARGES were framed under section 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the accused - respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His specific plea was that he did not demand any bribe from P.W. 5, the decoy Sri Biswal nor did he accept the bribe of L 500/ -, as alleged, and that P.W. 5 being annoyed for the delay in issuance of the permit has falsely implicated him in this case. In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited altogether eight documents. P.W. 1 is an accompanying witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 4 and 6 are the preparation and post -detection witnesses, P.W. 5 is the decoy, P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer, P.W. 8 is the Senior Assistant serving in the office of Transport Commissioner -cum - Chairman, S.T.A. and P.W. 9 is the sanctioning authority of prosecution. The accused -respondent did not choose to examine either any oral or documentary evidence in support of his plea. On conclusion of the trial, learned Trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution case and acquitted the accused -respondent of the charges by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt in view of the contradictions and infirmities appearing in the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 5 and 7 (1.0.) as well as non -production of chemical report. This Court minutely gone through the evidence of the witnesses so also the preparation report, detection report and the seizure lists. P.W. 1 is the over -hearing witness. He stated that on 6.8.1993 he was posted as Junior Clerk in Kalahandi Collectorate, Bhawanipatna. Being directed by the authority, he went to the office of the Inspector of Police Vigilance alongwith their office -in -charge Sri N.R. Das (P.W. 6). Once Vigilance Inspector introduced the complainant to them. The complainant produced five number of hundred rupee G.C. notes before them which were noted by P.Ws. 3 and 6 in separate chits. In his presence, one vigilance officer showed demonstration with phenolphthalein powder and S.C. solution. The sample hand washes were bottled and sealed. The G.C. notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and given to the decoy Sri Biswal for payment to the accused -respondent on demand. The vigilance officer recorded the preparation report (Ext. 1) on which he put his signature. Thereafter, they left for the office of the R.T.O. except the demonstrating vigilance police officer and one Inspector, weights and measure Sri Khamari. Both P.W. 5 and he entered into the office of the R.T.O. and went to the accused -respondent whereas other members of the raiding party stayed outside awaiting signal from him. The accused -respondent asked for the bribe as per the previous talks from Sri Biswal and Sri ,Biswal paid him the tainted money which the accused -respondent accepted. But the -manner of acceptance was that Sri Biswal kept the amount on the thigh of the accused -respondent below his table. Immediately he gave the pre -instructed signal to the raiding party and they rushed into the room. One Vigilance Inspector disclosed the identity to the accused -respondent. Both the palms of the accused were washed in S.C. solution resulting in change of colour. The full pant of the accused was washed in S.C. solution which turned to pink colour. The Inspector of Police Vigilance (P.W. 7) seized the tainted money, the chits and full pant and shirt of the accusedrespondent, the sample bottles, etc. vide seizure lists (Exts. 2, 3 and 4) on which he put his signature. P.W. 1 further stated that P.W. 7 recorded the detection report at the closure of the trap under Ext. 5 in which he put his signature. This witness was turned hostile and leading questions were put to him. In cross -examination, he admitted that when he entered into the office, there were other staff working in the of - fice. There was a rush of outsiders. He also admitted that the accused -respondent did not express in exact terms whether P.W. 5 had brought the bribe for him so that he would do the work and the accused did not accept the tainted money in his hand from P.W. 5. This witness also corroborated the statement with regard to turning of the solution to pink. He also proved the preparation report (Ext. 1), seizure lists (Exts. 2, 3 and 4) and detection report (Ext. 5).