PRADEEPTA KUMAR PRAHARAJ Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Pradeepta Kumar Praharaj faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No. 38 of 1998 (V)/T.R. No.73 of 2000 for offences punishable under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter '1988 Act') on the accusation that on 14/9/1998 being a public servant employed as an Asst. Surgeon in Project Hospital, Khatiguda in the district of Nabarangpur, he accepted Rs.300.00 (rupees three hundred only) from the informant Gajendra Nayak (P.W.5) by way of illegal gratification, other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official act i.e. for issuing his medico-legal opinion in respect of the injury sustained by the informant and obtained pecuniary advantage of such amount from P.W.5 by corrupt or illegal means and thereby abused his position as a public servant.

(2.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as per the written report presented by P.W.5 Gajendra Nayak before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Jeypore on 13/9/1998 is that on 23/8/1998, he had been to village Upara Gadigaon under Khatiguda police station to see his relatives and one Prabhudan Harijan of that village had assaulted him there by means of a 'Tenta' causing severe bleeding injury on his right palm. Thereafter, he reported the matter at Khatiguda Police Station and the investigating officer sent him to Project Hospital, Khatiguda for his medical examination and treatment. It is further stated that the appellant being the Medical Officer of the said hospital admitted him in the hospital and demanded bribe of Rs.500.00 for his complete treatment and when he expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, the appellant took Rs.100.00from him and asked him to make payment of the balance amount of Rs.400.00 within four to five days. The informant was discharged from the hospital on 4/9/1998 and the appellant demanded the rest amount. It is further stated that the appellant threatened the informant that he would not issue a favourable medical certificate and shall abstain from making further treatment unless the balance amount of Rs.400.00 is paid to him. It is also stated in the written report that the appellant asked the informant to pay Rs.300.00 by 14/9/1998 and finding no other option, the informant arranged Rs.300.00 and reported the matter before the Deputy Superintendent of Vigilance, Jeypore.

(3.) The defence plea of the appellant was one of complete denial of the occurrence and it was pleaded that he was a member of the Committee relating to Rehabilitation, Resettlement and Age Determination and one Tumbeswar Nayak, the brother of P.W.5 appeared before the said Committee and the said Committee had overruled his claim relating to his age for which a trap case has been foisted against him.