NIRANJAN BHARATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 5 of 1999 convicting the appellant under Sections 13(2) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and has also been directed to pay Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution is that one Kailash Chandra Dehury (P.W.3) was working as Peon in the office of the S.D.O., National Highway Sub-Division, Angul. He had applied for sanction of loan from G.P.F. Account and also had submitted an application for some advances to meet the medical expenses of his wife. He had also applied for leave salary due to him. The above applications were sent to the office of the Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Dhenkanal where the appellant was working as Dealing Assistant and was required to process the applications for sanction of leave as well as G.P.F. loan. It is alleged that P.W.3 (complainant) approached the appellant for early sanction of G.P.F. as well as leave salary but the papers were not put up before the authority for obtaining sanction order. On the other hand, it is alleged that the appellant demanded rupees two hundred to do the above work. Thereafter, the complainant reported the matter to the vigilance police vide Ext.12 and a case was registered following the formalities and it was decided to lay a trap. On 10.9.1998 trap was laid and the appellant was caught while accepting bribe of rupees two hundred and the said amount was recovered from the possession of the appellant. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was submitted for commission of the aforesaid offences and the appellant faced trial. Plea of the appellant is that he had never demanded bribe from the complainant and by the alleged date of trap, sanction of G.P.F. and leave salary had already been made. Further plea of the appellant is that since there was no matter pending before him as Dealing Assistant, there was no occasion for him also to demand the alleged bribe. On the contrary, the complainant had borrowed rupees two hundred from the appellant which he returned to him on the date trap was of laid and the same was treated as bribe.

(3.) IN this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the findings of the learned Special Judge (Vigilance) on the following grounds :