U. HARIGOPAL Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Sections 374 of Criminal Procedure Code and Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the appellant challenging the judgment and order of conviction dated 07.08.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand), in default of such payment, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w. Sec. 13(1)(d) of the said Act and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that complainant (P.W.2) Ramesh Chandra Sahu, Secretary, Kedar Gouri Khadi Gramodyog Samiti, Bhubaneswar had applied for a loan to Khadi and Village Industries Commission (in short, 'KVIC'), Bhubaneswar, for opening of a jewellery shop by their Samiti. The appellant-accused was the Director of the said Commission. On his application, the Samiti was sanctioned with a loan of Rs. 79,956/- on 08.05.98. Out of that sanctioned amount, a sum of Rs. 36,450/- was released at the first instance on 31.3.2000. The complainant thereafter applied for second instalment to the Commission. It is alleged that the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 1000/- to release the second instalment of the loan amount. Being aggrieved, the complainant lodged a written report against the accused-appellant before the S.P. C.B.I., Bhubaneswar and ultimately it was registered as an F.I.R. under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w. Sec. 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 17.10.2000 and investigation was taken up by paying a trap. During the trap proceeding, the accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe, and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) Plea of the appellant is that of complete denial. The further case of the appellant is that he has neither demanded any bribe nor accepted any money.