NARAYAN CHANDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Narayan Chandra Sahu, was an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, Bhadrak, and was in charge of issuing cement permits. Complainant Pitambar Nayak (P.W. 1) applied to the S.D.O., Bhadrak, for allotment of thirty bags of cement for repair of the temple of Mantrabasini Thakurani at Dhamnagar, but was allotted seven bags of cement. On 11.7.1979 he again applied for allotment of twenty-three bags of cement. On 26.7.1979 the S.D.O., Bhadrak, passed orders for issue of fifteen bags of cement in favour of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 then approached the appellant for issue of permit for fifteen bags of cement allotted to him. The appellant, instead of giving him the permit, made him run a number of times on one plea or the other and at last said that permit would not be issued unless Rs. 30/- was paid (@ Rs. 2/- per bag). The appellant asked P.W. 1 to come on 5.9.79 with the money for taking the permit for fifteen bags of cement. P. W. 1 could not arrange the money on 5.9.79. On 6.9.79, which was a Government holiday, he came to Bhadrak with the money. Accidentally he met the appellant who asked him to come on 7.9.79 with the money. The complainant came to know that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore (P.W. 2), was camping at Bhadrak. So he approached P.W.2 and submitted a complaint petition (Ext. 1). A trap was laid on 7.9.79. P.W. 1 produced Rs. 30/- in currency notes (one twenty-rupee note and one ten-rupee note) (M.Os. I and II) before the trap party which he proposed to give to the appellant as bribe. M.Os. I and II were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The processed notes were kept in a cover and handed over to P.W.1 which he kept in his pocket for payment to the appellant as illegal gratification on demand. P.W. 6, a Sub-Assistant Engineer, was instructed to accompany the complainant to see the transaction and give signal by rubbing his head with his hand after the appellant received the illegal gratification. A report (Ext. 4) was prepared and the numbers of the currency notes were recorded. A copy of Ext. 4 was supplied to the Magistrate (P.W. 3) who was to accompany the trap party. Thereafter the trap party went towards the office of the Assistant Civil Supplies Officer. P.W. 1 went to the appellant who inquired as to whether he had brought the money and the complainant answered in the affirmative by nodding his head. On demand made by the appellant, P.W. 1 handed over M.Os. I and II to him and the appellant kept the same in the lower left side pocket of his shirt. This was at about 2.15 p.m. On receiving signal from P.W. 6, the investigating officer (P. W. 7) and the other members of the trap party rushed to the spot. P. W. 7 after disclosing his identity and the identity of the other members of the party challenged the appellant that he had received Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification from P. W. 1 for issuing the permit for fifteen bags of cement. The appellant was found shivering at that time. The investigating officer caught hold of the hands of the appellant. His hands were washed with Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. The coloured solution was preserved in a sealed bottle (M.O. V). The appellant was asked to produce the money which he had received from the complainant and the appellant produced Rs. 30/- from his left side lower pocket. He also produced Rs. 438/- from his chest pocket. The numbers of the notes produced by the appellant from his left side lower pocket were noted. The numbers were compared with those mentioned in the preparation report (Ext. 4) and the numbers exactly tallied. The left side lower shirt pocket of the appellant was washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned faintly pink and the same was preserved in a sealed bottle (M.O. VIII). Seizure lists (Exts. 7, 8 and 13) were prepared. Copies of the seizure lists were supplied to the appellant and his personal cash of Rs. 438/- was returned to him. On completion of investigation and after complying with all formalities, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant for having committed offences under section 161 I.P.C. and under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The plea of the appellant was that he had received Rs. 30/- from P.W. 1 which was meant for payment to Krushna Chandra Bank (D.W. 1), a Peon of the A. C. S. D. s office, to whom P.W. lowed the money. The further plea of the appellant was that about a month before the date of occurrence he had a quarrel with P.W. 1 and in course of the quarrel, P. W. 1 had threatened to teach him a lesson.

(3.) Prosecution examined seven witnesses in support of the case. P. W. 1 is the complainant. He has stated that he applied for a permit for thirty bags of cement for repair of a temple of Mantrabasini Thakurani. He received a permit for seven bags of cement. As that was insufficient, he again applied for permit for twenty-three bags of cement. On his application the S.D.O., Bhadrak, passed orders for allotment of fifteen bags of cement. He came to the A. C. 5. o T office. The appellant was the clerk in-charge to issue the cement permit. He met the A.C.S.O. who directed him to receive the permit from the appellant. So he met the appellant but the latter avoided to issue the permit on some plea or the other and made him run several times. At last the appellant told that permit would be issued if he was paid Rs. 2/- per bag for himself and for the A.C.S.O. and demanded Rs. 30/- from P.W. 1. The appellant asked P.W. 1 to come with the money on 5.9.79. On that day P.W. 1 could not come from his village. When he came on 6.9.79, the office was closed; so he was returning to his village when he met the appellant near the bus-stand who asked him to come with the money on the next day. On that day (6.9.79) P.W. 1 came to know that the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore (P.W.2), was camping at Bhadrak. So he went to the vigilance office and filed his complaint for taking action. He was directed by P.W. 2 to come on 7.9.79 with the money. Accordingly he came to the vigilance office on 7.9.79 where the Magistrate (P.W. 3), the Junior Engineer (P.W. 6) and two Vigilance Inspectors (P.Ws. 4 and 7) were there. He was asked to narrate his grievance and he narrated as to how the accused had demanded Rs. 30/- to issue the cement permit. He produced one twenty-rupee currency note (M.O. I) and one ten rupee currency note (M.O. II). The notes were processed with chemical powder and returned to him and he kept the same in his chest pocket for payment to the appellant on the latterTs demand. A report was prepared and all of them proceeded towards the A.C.S.O.s office at about 2.00 p.m. In the A.C.S.O.s office, when P.W. 1 went to the appellant, the appellant asked him whether he had brought the money and he answered in the affirmative. The appellant then stretched his left hand and he gave him the two currency notes. The appellant took the currency notes and kept those in his lower left side shirt pocket. The raiding party on receiving the signal from P.W. 6 came there. The left hand of the appellant was washed with a solution which turned pink and the same was preserved in one sealed bottle. The appellant was then asked to produce the currency notes which he had received from P.W. 1. He brought out the notes from his pocket. The numbers of the currency notes exactly tallied with those mentioned in the report. The left side pocket of the appellant was also washed with the solution which turned pink. The shirt of the appellant and the currency notes were seized by the Vigilance Inspector. P.W. 1 identified the currency notes (M.Os. I and II) and the shirt of the appellant (M.O. III) in court. P.W. 2 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Balasore, who received the written complaint (Ext. 1) on 6.9.79 from P.W. 1. He submitted the same to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Cuttack, for registration of a case. The S.P. directed the Officer-in-Charge of Cuttack Vigilance Police-Station to register a case. He also directed the Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 7) to investigate into the case. On the instruction of P.W. 2, the services of a Magistrate and two disinterested Government officials were requisitioned. The complainant narrated as to how the appellant had demanded Rs. 30/- as illegal gratification for issuing a permit for fifteen bags of cement and produced Rs. 30/- consisting of one twenty-rupee note and one ten rupee note. This witness has fully corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the seizure of the notes from the appellant. He has further stated that when the appellant was asked to produce the money, he first trembled and then produced the money from the pocket of his shirt. Before he produced the currency notes, his hands were washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. The numbers of the notes tallied with those mentioned in the report. Detection report and seizure lists were prepared. On the suggestion made by the defence, he stated that the appellant had never stated before him that P.W. 1 had paid him Rs. 30/- for paying the same to D.W. 1. P.W. 3 is the Additional Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate. He accompanied the trap party. He has fully corroborated the statement of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He has stated about the seizure of the currency notes. However, he has stated that the appellant kept mum when asked about acceptance of bribe of Rs. 30/-. He has further stated that the hand of the appellant was washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which turned pink. In cross- examination he has stated that when the appellant was challenged by the investigating officer that he had accepted bribe from P.W. 1, the appellant first trembled and then said that he had received money from P.W. 1. P.W. 4 is the Inspector of Vigilance. He has corroborated P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. P.W. 5 is a Clerk in the Civil Supplies Office. He has stated about the recovery of the currency notes from the appellant. He has also stated that the numbers of the notes tallied with those mentioned in Ext. 4. He has also stated about the seizure of the permit books (Exts. 15 and 16) maintained in the A.C.S.O.s office. In cross-examination he has stated that P.W. 1 asked the appellant about Krushna Bank and gave him Rs. 30/- with a request to hand over the money to Krushna Bank. This witness was cross-examined by the prosecution. He was confronted with his previous statement made to the police and he stated that he might not have stated before the 1.0. that when the appellant said that Krushna Bank had not returned, Pitambar Nayak (P.W. 1) gave him Rs. 30/- with a request to hand over the money to Krushna Bank towards the payment of his dues. P.W. 6 is the Sub-Assistant Engineer who accompanied the complainant to the office of the A.C.S.O. He has stated that he has seen the appellant receiving the processed notes from the complainant and putting those in the lower left side pocket of his shirt. At that time he gave signal to the other members of the trap party by rubbing his head with the right hand. The trap party rushed into the room. He has fully corroborated the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 regarding the seizure of the currency notes from the appellant and other details. He has, however, stated that Pitambar Nayak (P.W. 1) told something to the appellant which he could not hear due to the rush at the entrance door. In cross-examination he has stated that about one month before 7.9.79 the appellant had some altercations with P.W. 1 near the teashop just close to the A.C.S.O.s office premises. P.W. 7 is the investigating officer.