BISWAJIT PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant being aggrieved with the order of conviction and sentences imposed on him by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 45 of 1997(V) corresponding to T.R. Case No. 204 of 1998 has preferred this appeal. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter, referred as "P.C. Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the Vigilance Organisation is that the complainant Hemanta Kumar Bisoi (P.W.3) a 'C' class contractor was entrusted with the work at an estimated cost of Rs.10,000/ - orally by the appellant for maintenance and repair (grass and earth work) of flood embankment at Turley on river Sunder under Khariar Irrigation Sub -Division. It is alleged that the present accused -appellant was the Assistant Engineer of the Khariar Irrigation Sub -Division at the relevant period. As per the procedure after execution of the work for passing of the final bill the signature of the Assistant Engineer along with his recommendation on the agreement is essential and for that P.W.3 when approached the appellant and requested him to send his bill along with the agreement with his recommendation, the accused -appellant demanded Rs.3,000/ -. Since there was some delay and the complainant (P.W.3) was reluctant to meet the demand of the accusedappellant, the appellant sent the agreement without his signature to the Irrigation Division at Bhawanipatna for which the final bill could not be prepared by the Division Office. When P.W.3 enquired about the same at the Division Office, he was informed that the appellant had sent the agreement without his signature and recommendation and unless it is done the bill cannot be passed. The informant thereafter with a view to facilitate the passing of the bill brought back the agreement from the Division Office on 27.8.1997 and met the appellant and requested him to recommend his case to the Division Office but again the appellant reiterated his earlier demand of Rs.3,000/ - for signing the agreement. Ultimately, the appellant on 27.8.1997 told P.W.3 that if he is paid Rs.2,000/ - he will sign the agreement and would make arrangement for passing of the bill. The complainant P.W.3 arranged Rs.2,000/ - as per the demand of the appellant and lodged a complaint before the D.S.P. Vigilance, Jeypure who was then camping at Bhawanipatna in writing vide Ext.6. The said D.S.P., Vigilance treated the report of P.W.3 as plain paper F.I.R. under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 7 of the P.C. Act and directed Khali Patra (P.W.11), Inspector of Vigilance, Bhawanipatna to take up investigation by laying a trap. Accordingly the trap was laid and the numbers assigned to 20 numbers of one hundred rupee G.C. notes which were produced by P.W.3 before the Vigilance D.S.P. were noted and after following the necessary procedure and in presence of the decoy witness and other independent witnesses Rs.2000/ - was paid to the appellant by P.W.3 in his Office on 29.8.1997. The said tainted money of Rs.2000/ - was recovered by P.W.11 from the chest pocket of the appellant which were smeared with chemicals. Hand wash of the appellant and the shirt chest pocket of the appellant were taken by P.W.11 in presence of the witnesses and seizure of cash and other materials were effected. Investigation was taken up in right earnest by the Vigilance Organisation and after completion of investigation getting prima -facie materials against the appellant charge sheet was placed in the Court to stand trial.

(3.) THE plea of the appellant was that of complete denial of the allegation of demand of money by him for signing of the agreement and it is his specific plea that the complainant who is a contractor on many occasion had made undue request to him for his benefit and when the appellant did not comply with his requests, bearing grudge and to harass him the false case has been filed by the complainant. It is also his further plea that the complainant forcibly put some money in his shirt pocket though he had already sent the bills to the Division Office for passing of the same by the Executive Engineer and he has been falsely entangled in this case.