REPUBLIC OF INDIA Vs. SANTOSH NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sarthak Nayak, learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) and Mr. H.K. Mund, learned counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) This leave petition under sec. 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Republic of India seeking for leave to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and order dtd. 16/5/2018 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I.-II, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.04 of 2006/R.C. No.25(A) of 2005 in acquitting the opposite party Santosh Nayak of the charges under Sec. 7 and sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act').

(3.) The opposite party faced trial for the aforesaid offences on the accusation that he accepted bribe money of Rs.6,000.00 (rupees six thousand) from the informant S.Chandrasekhar, who is the son-in-law of the deceased employee Late Dula Oram for disbursement of widow/children pension under Employees' Pension Scheme of EPF Organization in favour of his mother-in-law Smt. Tersa Oram (P.W.11). It is the case of the informant that his late father-in-law Dula Oram was working as a worker in M/s. Ores India Ltd., a private contractor in Kalta Iron Ore Mines. The said Dula Oram expired on 24/9/1994 and his widow Smt. Tersa Oram had submitted an application for disbursement of widow/children pension under Employees' Pension Scheme of EPF Organization and the said application was received in the EPFO Sub-Regional Office, Rourkela on 6/2/1996 and was processed. The arrear pension of Rs.17,159.00 for the period from 25/9/1994 to 31/10/1996 was paid to P.W.11 and her two children and thereafter, pension for the months from November 1996 to May 1997 was also paid. It is the specific case of the informant that P.W.11 could able to get Rs.22,000.00 (twenty two thousand) as pension for the period from 2003 to 2005, but the arrear pension for the period from 1994 to 2003 was not paid till 3/6/2005. It is the further prosecution case that since P.W.11 was an illiterate lady and was not in a position to pursue the matter at EPFO Office, Rourkela, she entrusted her son in-law, the informant to pursue the matter of arrear pension. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the informant visited the EPFO Office, Rourkela on 3/6/2005 to enquire about the position of arrear pension and he met the opposite party in his office. On enquiry, the opposite party told the informant that since the matter was an old one and complicated, if latter would pay a bribe of Rs.6,000.00 (six thousand) to him, he would process the file, so that payment of arrears pension would be released to P.W.11 at the earliest. The opposite party also intimated the informant that the pension amount would be around rupees one lakh and if the informant failed to pay the said amount, the file would not be processed. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the opposite party told the informant to give him the demanded bribe of Rs.6,000.00 on 6/6/2005 at the restaurant near SRP Office in Railway Colony, Rourkela at 10.00 a.m. when the opposite party would come on his way to his office. As the informant was not willing to pay any bribe to the opposite party, being aggrieved, he submitted a F.I.R. before the D.S.P., C.B.I, Rourkela Unit on 6/6/2005, who in turn forwarded the said F.I.R. to the S.P., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar to take further action. Basing on such F.I.R., the S.P., C.B.I., Bhubaneswar registered R.C. Case No. 25(A) of 2005 and took up investigation of the case. After the trap was laid and the formalities of preparation for laying the trap was over, they proceeded to the office of the opposite party and it is the prosecution case that the trap was successful and tainted note was recovered from the possession of the opposite party which he had kept in his pocket after accepting the same from the informant and the hand wash of the opposite party taken in sodium carbonate solution turned pink. Hand wash in sample bottles were collected and sealed which was sent for chemical analysis. On completion of investigation, sanction order to prosecute the opposite party was obtained and charge sheet was submitted against the opposite party.