KHYAMASAGAR BAINA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and one Prasanta Kumar Dora who were serving as a Peon and a Junior Clerk respectively at the George High School, Bargarh faced trial for alleged commission of offences under Section 13{1)(d)/13(3)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Berefit of all unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that P.W. 3, an ex-student of the George High School, Bargarh had discontinued his studies in the year 1988 and had taken his transfer certificate from the school. Unfortunately his transfer certificate was eaten away by whiteants. So in the month of May, 1995 he applied to the Headmaster of the aforesaid school for issue of a duplicate transfer certificate. His application was sent to Prasanta Kumar Dora, the Clerk-in-charge. The latter asked P.W. 3 to contact the appellant- Peon. It was alleged that when P.W. 3 met the appellant and asked him about the paraphernalia, the latter advised him to make a Station Diary Entry at the police station about the loss of his transfer certificate and to swear an affidavit to that effect and then meet him with the aforesaid two documents. Though P.W. 3 complied with the said requirements and met the appellant and Shri Dora several times, the matter was stalled over on some pretext or other. At last, on 20-8-1995 the appellant-Peon told him that unless he (P.W. 3) spent a sum of Rs. 200.00, a duplicate transfer certificate from the school could not be issued. P.W. 3 being a poor man expressed his incapacity and at last agreed that he would pay Rs. 150.00 to the Clerk. On 22-8-1995 P.W. 3 went to the school and paid a sum of Rs. 30.00 to the appellant-Peon expressing that he could not arrange the rest amount. The appellant, it is stated, instructed P.W. 3 to arrange the balance amount of Rs. 120.00 by next day for payment to the Clerk. Being disgusted, P.W. 3 reported the matter to the Vigilance Police by writing a letter to the S.P., Vigilance, Sambalpur. The Dy. S.P., Vigilance, Sambalpur was entrusted with the investigation and he decided to lay a trap against the accused persons. Accordingly preparation for the trap was made and soon after the appellant-Peon accepted the money from P.W. 3, on receiving signal from an independent witness the Inspector of Vigilance and others arrested the appellant and the Clerk. They seized the amount paid by P.W.

(3.) After obtaining sanction from the competent authority for prosecution, the accused persons were charge-sheeted and they faced the trial. The plea of the accused persons was complete denial. The appellant-Peon took a specific plea that paper publication regarding loss of original transfer certificate was a prerequisite for issuing a duplicate transfer certificate. Accordingly, on the request of P.W. 3 he had received Rs. 150.00 for taking steps for publication of the news in a local newspaper. In short, his plea was that the amount received by him from P.W. 3 was not towards bribe or illegal gratification, but towards the cost of paper publication. 3. Prosecution examined six witnesses, out of whom P.W. 3 was the complainant, P.W. 1 was a Junior Clerk of the Tahsil Office who was an independent witness being set up by the Vigilance Department to accompany P.W. 1 and to overhear the conversation. P.W. 1 was also instructed to give signal so as to enable the raiding party to recover the amount paid. P.W. 5 was the B.D.O., Bargarh who was an Executive Magistrate and had been assigned the duty to accompany the trap party and witness the detection. P.Ws. 2 and 4 were the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction of the prosecution. P.W. 6 was the Inspector of Vigilance and the Investigating Officer in the case. Prosecution also produced sixteen documents.