ASHOK KUMAR PANDA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Republic of India. This is an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the 'Code' for brevity, for staying of order of conviction of the appellant. The learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Court No. III, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 5/7 of 2013/2012 has convicted the accused person for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity, for demanding and acceptation bribe of Rs. 5,000/ - for sanctioning the agricultural loan in favour of the complainant.

(2.) IN course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant painstakingly argued that this is an exceptional case where the conviction of the appellant is patently illegal on the face of the impugned judgment. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the loan application has been seized by the C.B.I., after seven days of the trap. Hence, it is argued that there is no consideration for payment of illegal gratification by the complainant. Secondly, it is submitted that at the time of trap, a number of persons were gathered there and the accused absconded from the place of trap. However, though an F.I.R. has been lodged against such an incident, no charge has been levelled against the appellant for concealing or causing disappearance of evidence punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C. Thirdly, it is submitted that currency notes were not recovered from the appellant -petitioner right after the trap. However, the C.B.I., has established that on the next date, the appellant was apprehended and on appropriate chemical test, trace of phenolphthalein powder was found from the pant pocket of the appellant. On this score, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is ample scope for staying the conviction of the appellant as on the face of record he is entitled to be acquitted. However, in course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the reported decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan and another, : AIR 2004 SC 1188 : (2003) 12 SCC 432 has conceded that conviction should be stayed only in very exceptional cases.

(3.) ON examination of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Special Judge, (C.B.I.) has taken into consideration all the materials available on record and has come to the conclusion that the C.B.I., has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, he proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence described above.