MANORANJAN MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.03.1990 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur.in T.R. Case No.2 of 1987 convicting him for the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity.

(2.) Facts of the case may be narrated briefly as follows:

(3.) The case of the defence is that there was no such demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused. As regards the hand wash of the accused turning pink after dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the explanation of accused is that the complainant might have previously come in touch with the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein power and after arrival of the complainant in the office, the accused shook hand with him and while doing so, the accused might have come in contact with phenolphthalein power from the hands of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant arranged the files on the table of the accused and the accused took the files to do office work. In that process, he might have come in contract with phenolphthalein power and as such his hand wash might have turned pink. Regarding the recovery of money, the explanation of the accused is that the complainant kept the currency note under the table cloth and during search the I.O. recovered the same from under the table cloth and it was not within the knowledge of the accused.