GHASIRAM BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Ghasiram Behera faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.314 of 2007 for offences punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) and Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 81988 Act9) on the accusation that on 14/11/2003 he being a public servant functioning as Dealing Clerk in the office of Sub-Treasury, Pallahara in Angul district obtained for his pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.1,100.00 (rupees eleven hundred) from the informant Mahendra Kumar Sahoo (P.W.1) for processing the gratuity and arrear provisional pension bills of his widow mother and accepted the said amount for himself as gratification other than legal remuneration for the above purpose.

(2.) P.W.1 lodged the written report (Ext.1) before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack through the Inspector, Vigilance, Angul on 13/11/2003 stating therein that his father late Harihar Sahoo was serving as a teacher of Government Primary School and he expired on 29/3/2003. About two months prior to the lodging of F.I.R., the bill of unutilized leave of his deceased father in the name of his mother was submitted by B.D.O., Pallahara to Sub-Treasury office, Pallahara for passing the same and for payment. As the processing of such bill got delayed, on the request of P.W.1 for processing the bill file, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000.00 (rupees one thousand) for such purpose and out of the demanded amount, P.W.1 made payment of Rs.200.00(rupees two hundred) under compulsion and he was instructed by the appellant to pay the balance amount later on and thereafter gratuity and arrear provisional pension bills amounting to Rs.90,800.00 was submitted by B.D.O., Pallahara on 1/11/2003 to the Sub-Treasury along with provisional pension bill of the mother of P.W.1. Though the provisional pension bill was passed by the treasury, the other two bills were returned to the Block office. When P.W.1 came to know about the same, he came to the treasury on 3/11/2003 and met the appellant, but the appellant on seeing P.W.1 got angry and charged him for non-payment of the balance amount of bribe and further warned him not to process any of the bills if his demand was not fulfilled. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs.1,500.00 from P.W.1 to process the bills and did not listen to P.W.1 in spite of his repeated request on 4/11/2003. P.W.1 again met the appellant in his office and requested him but the latter remained firm on his demand. Finding no other alternative and under compulsion and against his will, P.W.1 paid Rs.400.00 to the appellant who took the same and asked P.W.1 to get the bills resubmitted from the Block office and further asked him to come up with the balance amount of Rs.1,100.00 on 14/11/2003 and to pay him in his office. The appellant made it clear that unless the balance amount was paid, he would not process the bill. The bills were resubmitted to the treasury by the Block office on 10/11/2003. P.W.1 further mentioned in his written report (Ext.1) that he was going to pay the bribe amount of Rs.1,100.00 as demanded by the appellant to him against his will and under compulsion and requested the vigilance officials to take necessary action against the appellant.

(3.) The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and false implication. The further plea of the defence is that P.W.1 claiming himself to be a politician was usually coming to the office of the appellant in connection with the works of the public prior to the initiation of the case. He was in a habit to threaten the staff of the treasury office for performing the work of the people. The appellant on one occasion protesting such activities of P.W.1 warned him not to come to the office to pollute the official environment for which there was hot exchange of words between the appellant and P.W.1. The appellant had threatened him to see in future. It is stated that on the date of occurrence with a view to harass the appellant on account of the previous grudge, P.W.1 coming to his office while he was busy in performing works, shook his hands and all of a sudden thrust some currency notes into the chest pocket of the wearing shirt of the appellant and immediately fled away from the office room despite resistance and protest of the appellant. At the nick of the moment, the vigilance officials came and caught hold of him. On being asked, he brought out the tainted G.C. notes from his pocket and counted. It is further pleaded by the appellant that he neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from P.W.1 and he had already sent the concerned file to the accountant two days prior to the date of trap and therefore, there was no work of P.W.1 pending with him.