RAMA CHANDRA PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 31/3/2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.89 of 1999 arising out of VGR Case No.97 of 1999. The Appellant, having stood trial for the offences under Ss. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the P.C. Act"), was found guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 on each count, with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as unfolded before the trial court, is that the Informant had purchased a piece of land by executing a registered Sale Deed in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ranpur on 14/10/1996. The vendor had authorised the Deed Writer, Sanand Patnaik, to receive the registered Sale Deed on behalf of the complainant. The document was to be collected on 18/10/1996. It is alleged that on 18/10/1996 and again on 25/10/1996, Sri Patnaik approached the Head Clerk, Ramachandra Parida (the Appellant), requesting delivery of the Sale Deed, but the latter avoided doing so and asked that the vendee be brought. Consequently, the complainant approached the Appellant on 27/10/1996 and again on 30/10/1996. On 1/11/1996, when the complainant again approached the Appellant, he allegedly demanded Rs.200.00 as illegal gratification for release of the Sale Deed. The complainant, being aggrieved, lodged a written report with the Vigilance leading to registration of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.87/1996. During investigation, a trap was laid and the Record-keeper, Krushna Chandra Mohanty, was caught red-handed while accepting Rs.200.00from the complainant. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant and the said Record-keeper for the offences under Ss. 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 7 of the P.C. Act.

(3.) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in total. P.W.1 being the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Nayagarh, who accorded the sanction for trap; P.W.2 being the Magisterial witness; P.W.3 being the Scientific Officer, S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar; P.W.4 being the Over-hearing witness; P.W.5 being a co-villager of the Decoy; P.W.6 being the Junior Clerk at the Office of Sub-Registrar; P.W.7 being the Decoy/Complainant; P.W.8 being the I.O./Inspector (Vigilance); and exhibited sixteen documents (Exts.1 to 16/4), besides producing M.Os.I to IX. The defence examined four witnesses and proved one document (Ext.A).