GHANASHYAM MEHER Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner Ghanashyam Meher who was working as the Senior Clerk in the Junagarh Tahasil office has filed this I.A. under Sec. 389 of Cr.P.C. for stay of order of conviction imposed on him by the impugned judgment dtd. 14/12/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna in G.R. (Vigilance) Case No.22 of 2015/T.R. No.14 of 2016 in convicting him under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 (rupees five thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month for the offence under Sec. 7 of the 1988 Act and R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months for the offence under Sec. 13(2) of the 1988 Act and directing both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that P.W.5 Kulamani Meher lodged a written report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna Unit on 10/9/2015 stating therein that on 18/8/2015, he submitted a written report before the Inspector in-charge of Junagarh police station against one Nimain Dalpati and Gobinda Meher as they forcibly possessed some land under Khata No.88 in Mouza-Brahmaniguda, which stood recorded in the R.O.R. in the name of his grandfather and the said fact was entered in the Station Diary vide No.346 dtd. 18/8/2015. According to P.W.5, the Inspector in-charge of Junagarh police station by a letter requested the Tahasildar, Junagarh for demarcation of the said land who in turn directed the R.I., Kulihari to demarcate. The file of the demarcation case was with the petitioner. According to P.W.5, on 23/8/2015 he met the petitioner and asked him to send the order of the Tahasildar to the R.I., but the petitioner expressed that the said work could not be done immediately and it would take some eight to ten days time and a sum of Rs.500.00(rupees five hundred) would be required for the same. It is further stated that on 10/9/2015 at 12.50 p.m., P.W.5 again met the petitioner and expressed that he was unable to pay such amount, but the petitioner insisted that unless P.W.5 paid Rs.500.00 (rupees five hundred), he would not send the demarcation order to the R.I. and therefore, P.W.5 agreed to pay the amount. The petitioner asked P.W.5 to bring cash of Rs.500.00 (rupees five hundred) on the next day for which P.W.5 approached the Vigilance Officer.

(3.) The learned trial Court in its impugned judgment has been pleased to hold that it is crystal clear that the petitioner though received the letter of the Inspector in-charge of Junagarh police station dtd. 22/8/2015 and the application of the complainant (P.W.5) with endorsement of Tahasildar directing the R.I. to make measurement of the land of P.W.5, he sat over the matter for long time and only when P.W.5 approached and assured him to pay Rs.500.00 (rupees five hundred) on 11/9/2015, he started registering the case and such deliberate conduct of the petitioner indicates that he wanted illegal gratification/remuneration/reward from the complainant to process his application and send it to concerned R.I. and the evidence of P.W.5 is clear enough that on more than one occasion, he visited the Tahasil Office, Junagarh to get his genuine work to be done but the petitioner caused delay in the matter and ultimately, being displeased with the conduct of the petitioner, P.W.5 approached the vigilance authorities. It is further held that P.W.5 deliberately gave false statement in the Court under the influence of the petitioner and the facts stated in the F.I.R. and his earlier statement recorded under Sec. 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. implicating the petitioner are correct and the submission that earlier F.I.R. of P.W.5 was suppressed and substituted by Ext.12 is an embroidered hypothesis, which is not believable. It is further held that the prosecution has been able to clearly establish the fact of demand of bribe of Rs.500.00(rupees five hundred) by the petitioner from P.W.5 and the petitioner received the same from P.W.5 on 11/9/2015 in presence of P.W.1. It is further held that the prosecution has complied with the requirement of sanction order under Sec. 19 of the 1988 Act by proving Ext.21. Learned trial Court further held that the defence has not been able to show by probabilities of any kind that he was falsely implicated by the vigilance authorities who have neither any personal interest in the matter nor it is shown that they had any grudge against the petitioner to grind him in a false case and the defence plea accordingly failed. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the offences under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act has been committed by the petitioner and the petitioner was found guilty of such charges.