MAHENDRA MAHARANA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mahendra Maharana faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.14 of 2006 for offences punishable under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act') on the accusation that he being a public servant functioning as UDC in the Office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Sector-5, Rourkela on 22/3/2006 at Laxmi Market, Sector-4, Rourkela demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2,000.00 (rupees two thousand) from Basudev Mohanty (P.W.4) as gratification other than legal remuneration for processing the file for issuing the gratuity sanction order to the M/s. Essel Mining and Industries Limited Jilling (hereafter 'the Company').

(2.) The first information report (Ext.12) was lodged by P.W.4 Basudev Mohanty on 21/3/2006 at C.B.I. Rourkela branch office wherein it is stated that he was working in the Company and when he was removed from service in an illegal manner, he filed a case before the Controlling Authority -cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar and on 17/2/2006, final order was passed for payment of Rs.50,005.00(rupees fifty thousand five) in his favour within a period of one month from the date of order. P.W.4 approached the appellant, who was the UDC in the Office of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sector-5, Rourkela for processing the file for issuing the gratuity sanction order to the Company.

(3.) The defence plea of the appellant is one of denial and it is pleaded that he was not dealing with the file of P.W.4 relating to gratuity matter and as such, there was no occasion for him to demand bribe from him nor he had ever demanded any bribe from P.W.4 either on 21/3/2006 or 22/3/2006. The further plea of the appellant was that one G.Y. Rao was working as Steno to Regional Labour Commissioner, Rourkela and he had close acquaintance with P.W.4 and that the appellant was working as Secretary General of Staff Association of Labour Department and that G.Y. Rao was not pulling on well with the appellant on account of his leadership and that the appellant had complained against G.Y. Rao for his transfer prior to 21/3/2006. It is further pleaded that the final order dtd. 17/2/2006 of the Controlling Officer -cum- Asst. Labour Commissioner vide Ext.8 passed in favour of P.W.4 was received by Narendra Maharana (D.W.1), a clerk in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner, Rourkela on 20/3/2006 from Smt. Asima Mishra, Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar at Camp Court, Rourkela and on 21/3/2006 D.W.1 handed over the copy of the order to P.W.4 with instruction to approach the Company authorities and also sent a copy of the order to the Company on the very same day. It is further pleaded by the appellant that P.W.4 had no occasion to approach him for processing any file in the matter and P.W.4 has foisted the false case at the instance of G.Y. Rao. It is pleaded in the accused statement that P.W.4 forcefully tried to insert tainted notes in his pocket to which he pushed back the hand of P.W.4 but another person caught hold of the right hand of the appellant and some gum like substance stuck to the hand of the appellant. It is pleaded that P.W.7 carried phenolphthalein powder with the constable and the same was used at the time of detection.