SUSANT KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner Susant Kumar Sahu who was the V.L.W. in Gania Block in Nayagarh District has filed this interim application under Sec. 389 of Cr.P.C. for stay of his conviction passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.01 of 2011 vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 20/2/2023 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 R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00(Rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months for the offence under Sec. 7 of the 1988 Act and to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo R.I. for a further period of two months for the offence under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 21/12/2009, one Milu Rai lodged a written report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Nayagarh Unit, Nayagarh addressing to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar stating therein that he was an inhabitant of village Dhobabarai under Gania Block and a sum of Rs.20,000.00(Rupees twenty thousand) was sanctioned for construction of the platform of his village well and he was selected as V.L.L. in Palli Sabha of his village to construct the platform of the said well and in his name, the work order was issued which was signed by the Sarpanch seven to eight days prior to the lodging of F.I.R. Thereafter, the informant approached the petitioner four days prior to the lodging of F.I.R. who was supposed to issue the work order but the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.2,000.00 (rupees two thousand) as bribe to issue the work order. On 21/12/2009 at about 2.00 p.m., when the informant again approached the petitioner and expressed his inability to pay the demanded amount, the petitioner refused to issue the work order, however he reduced the demanded bribe amount from Rs.2,000.00 (rupees two thousand) to Rs.1,800.00(rupees one thousand eight hundred) and asked the informant to pay the amount by 22/12/2009 to get the work order.

(3.) On assessing the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court came to hold that the defence has failed to rebut the presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C. Act, even at the touch stone of preponderance of probability. It was further held that the prosecution has also proved the original sanction order against the petitioner vide Ext.20 and the same further fortifies that all the material documents were produced before the sanctioning authority and that after going through all the documents, the sanction order has been passed by the then Collector, Nayagarh.