RABINDRANATH PRUSTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been found guilty under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the Act') and under Section 161 of the Penal Code for receiving Rs. 500/ - as illegal gratification from one Gangadhar Misra on 7 -4 -1976 and has been convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default, to undergo further R. I. for one month.

(2.) THE charges framed against the appellant are as follows : -

(3.) THE defence case is that the accused was never directed by P. W. 5 to look into the complaint of P. W. 1 against Joharimal Gajanan and that the accused never , demanded or accepted any money from P. W. 1 to help him in his dispute with Joharimal Gajanan. On 31 -1 -1976 he issued a command certificate (Ext. 4) to P. W. 12 as directed by P. W. 5 and the station diary entry dated 30 -1 -76 was written under the direction of P. W. 5. It is also stated that the cases instituted by Bata Krushna Das, the Gumasta of Joharimal Gajanan, in which reports had been called for from the Officer -in -charge of Sadar Police Station had never been entrusted to the accused for enquiry and as such, there was no occasion for the accused to demand or accept any bribe from P. W. 1. It is Narayan Rout, the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police who had been entrusted with the said enquiry. The allegation that the accused threatened P. W. 1 to arrest him under the MISA is denied and on the other hand, it is stated that the accused had no authority to arrest anybody under MISA. The further allegation that the accused demanded and accepted bribe from P. W. 1 threatening him to get him arrested under MISA is also denied. The accused, however, admits that he knew P.W.1 earlier to be a rich dealer of Malgodown on account of his frequent visits to the Police Station. The accused had purchased a motor cycle after incurring a loan from the Canara Bank P. W. 1, however, had requested the accused to help in the matter of arrest of Basanta Roul under MISA to which the accused had expressed his inability. Basanta Roul was arrested later on under the MISA as per the direction of the higher authority. The accused has alleged that he was in need of money to clear the Bank loan for which he had requested P. W. 1 to advance a loan of Rs. 1000/ - to which P. W. 1 had agreed. On 7 -4 -1976 the accused went to the house of P. W. 1 in the evening to collect the loan as promised by P. W. 1. P. W. 1, however, offered only a sum of Rs. 500/ - and not Rs. 1000/ - as promised by him earlier. The accused did not accept the amount of Rs. 500/ - as it would not serve his purpose and started to came (Sic) away. P. W. 1 thereupon came with the accused on his motor cycle to Chhatrabazar to arrange the balance money of Rs. 500/ - from somewhere. At Chhatrabazar P. W. 1 went to the house of someone with the plea that he was going to arrange the balance Rs. 500/ -. P. W. 1, however, came back empty handed saying that the man from whom he would have brought the money was not available. Thereafter the accused started for Sadar Police Station and P. W. 1 wanted to go towards Dolamundai in a rickshaw. As P. W. 1 has no change as reported by him to pay the rickshaw fare, he gave one 10 rupee G. O. note to the accused to change the same into notes of smaller denominations. The accused had then in his possession a bunch of currency notes from out of which he brought out and gave to P. W. 1 currency notes of smaller denominations amounting to Rs. 10/ - and kept the ten rupee note received from P. W. 1 in exchange along with the same in his pocket. Thereafter P. W. 1 moved away. So also the accused came away to the police station. According to the accused, some time after his arrival at the police station, P. W. 15 came there and wanted to search the pocket of the accused all of a sudden P. W. 2 and P. W. 5 were directed by P. W. 15 to catch hold of the hands of the accused. The accused was surprised at the undignified behaviour of P. Ws. 2, 5 and 15 and wanted to know the reason for the search. During the resistance he offered, the money that was inside the pocket fell down on the floor whereafter P. W. 15 and others seized the money and proceeded as if the said money was received by the accused from P. W. 1. According to the accused the money that was in his pocket at that time which fell down during the tussle was received by him 2 to 3 days before the occurrence towards his pay. The accused being a bachelor he is used to carry all the cash he had with him in his pocket. It is, therefore, contended that the accused is not guilty of any of the offences alleged to have been committed by him. alleged to have been committed by him.