SATYANANDA PANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Satyananda Pani faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 45 of 1995 for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(1)(d) punishable under section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act') on the accusation that on 19.01.1994 at about 4.00 p.m., he being a public servant functioning as Excise Inspector, Striking Force, Berhampur, in his office situated at Gosaninuagaon, Berhampur by corrupt and illegal means and abusing otherwise his official position, obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.300/- from the complainant (P.W.6) and directly accepted such amount from him as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for showing favour to P.W.6 for not filing an excise case against him. The learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 24.06.2008 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for one month under section 7 of the 1988 Act and to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the 1988 Act and both the sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The factual matrix of the prosecution case as per the written report presented by P.W.6 Prakash Chandra Sahoo before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur on 19.01.1994 is that on 31.12.1993 the appellant who was the local Excise Inspector called him and his father to his office located at Gosaninuagaon and asked them to sign on a paper on the ground of seizure of liquor from a field situated nearer to their homestead land. When P.W.6 expressed his unwillingness for such action of the appellant as he was not present in the village, the appellant assured P.W.6 and his father that nothing would happen to them as the liquor was seized from the field. Accordingly, P.W.6 and his father put their signatures on the paper produced by the appellant. It is further stated in the F.I.R. that when they put their signatures, the appellant threatened them to initiate a case against them as the liquor was seized from the back side of their homestead land and to send them to Court after arrest. The appellant further told them that if they would pay Rs.300/-, no case would be initiated against them. Thereafter, P.W.6 and his father returned to their village. Within three to four days, two peons of Excise Office came to the house of P.W.6 and told him to come to the Excise Office as the appellant had called him but P.W.6 did not go to the Excise Office. On 18.01.1994 at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant with his staff searched the residential premises of P.W.6 but did not get any contraband articles. At that time, P.W.6 was not present in his house. The appellant threatened the father of P.W.6 to search his house again and to send them to Court in custody as earlier demand of Rs.300/- was not fulfilled. When P.W.6 came to know about the development from his father, finding no other way, he collected Rs.300/- to give the same as bribe to the appellant against his desire.

(3.) P.W.11 J. Rama Chandra Rao, Inspector of Vigilance, Reserve Squad, Berhampur was directed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur to detect the case by laying a trap and to investigate the case.