T NARAYAN RAO Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant stands convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) read with Section 5 (2) thereof (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and also under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the first count, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of fifteen days more and under the second, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant received as bribe a sum of Rs. 30/ -, three ten -rupee currency notes (marked M. Os. II to IV) from P.W. 9 on 27.4.1972 for making over to him the lease deed Ext.17. Earlier on 12.7.1971 P.W. 9 had applied for lease of a strip of Railway land (100'x20') under Ex.5, within Khallikote Railway station premises. The appellant was admittedly the Senior Clerk in the office of the Divisional Engineer, South Eastern Railway, Khurda Road and dealing with lease cases. There was another applicant Shrihari Patra for a lease of an overlapping and contiguous piece of land measuring 50'x15.' He had been granted lease of the same under Ext.4 on 18.9.1971. As the lease in favour of Shrihari Patra was earlier, P.W. 9 was recommended a lease by P.W. 1 over 100'x15'. On 31.1.1972, P.W. 9 signed the agreement and subsequently on 4.2.1972 P.W. 1 signed it. P.W. 9 was asked to sign the agreement plan on 18.2.1972 (Ext.21). The prosecution case is that initially on 31.1.1972 the accused had demanded Rs. 50/ -from P.W. 9 saying that to be the usual amount he gets in a lease case. On that occasion P.W. 9 had paid only Rs. 10/ -. Subsequently on 18.2.1972, P.W. 9 had paid Rs. 10/ - and suggested to the appellant to send the lease deed by post. P.W. 9 waited for four months and as he did not get the lease deed he contacted the appellant on 26.4.1972 when the appellant demanded the balance Rs. 30/ -.

(3.) THE defence was that P.W. 9 was pestering him to get the lease deed as he had filed a case against Shrihari Patra. But it could not be done as the same was not complete in all respects. He had made no such demand as alleged. He had not met the appellant on 26.4.1972. On 27.4.1972 he was working at his table with a banyan as it was sultry and his shirt was hanging on the chair. On that day he had drawn Rs. 50/ - from the Postal Savings Bank which he had kept in his shirt pocket. P.W. 9 somehow inserted M. Os. II. III and IV and removed his Rupees 50/ -. While he was examining the file to see if Ext.17 had become complete, P.W. 9 snatched it from his hand. Regarding the incriminating circumstance of sodium carbonate solution turning pink on his dipping fingers therein, the explanation was that the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) first dipped his fingers in the solution to demonstrate as to how he would do it and thereafter he did it thereby suggesting that if the solution turned pink it was because of the first dip of the fingers of P.W. 10.