P VASUDEVA RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against conviction of the appellant under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to undergo R. I. for one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default to undergo R. I. for three months more under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that the appellant was the Sub -Assistant Engineer (Overseer) under Banki Block No. 1 for two years, including 1971. P. W. 1, a Ward Member of Bandala Gram Panchayat took contract for construction of a grain gola building at Baunsaput in 1959 at Rs. 5.200/ -. Though he completed the work within two to three years, yet no final measurement was made nor final bill was passed and the Block also did not take delivery of possession of that building. Ultimately, under orders of the B.D.O., the appellant went and measured the work on 10 -10 -69. P. W. 1 met the appellant four days thereafter and requested to finalise the bill. But the appellant demanded Rs. 500/ - for that purpose and after bargain it was settled that P. W. 1 would pay Rs. 200/ -. As P. W. 1 expressed his inability to pay the amount of Rs. 200/ -, the appellant did not finalise the matter. The question was discussed in a meeting of the Panchayat on 28 -10 -71 where the appellant stated that the construction work done by P. W. 1 was full of defects and his bill was to be rejected. The Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti (P. W. 3) directed the appellant to finalise the bill as it was an old pending case. After the meeting, P. W. 1 went to the appellant twice and requested him to finalise the matter. On 22 -11 -71, P. W. 1 expressed before the appellant that he was unable to pay the amount of Rs. 200/ - at a time and so the appellant suggested that P. W. 1 should pay Rs. 100/ - within a day or two and the balance amount of Rs. 100/ - would be paid after final payment. P. W. 1 then came to the S.P. Vigilance, Cuttack with Rs. 100/ - on 23 -11 -71 and lodged F. I. R., Ext. 1. On 24 -11 -71, he along with the vigilance party came to Banki, but the vigilance party returned as the appellant was absent from headquarters that day, Thereafter, another vigilance party went to Banki on 25 -11 -71 in the forenoon. The party learnt at the Inspection Bungalow from P. W. 1 that the appellant had returned to headquarters. P. W. 8, the I. O., went out and called P. Ws. 2 and 3. At the Inspection Bungalow, the facts of the case were explained to them. P. W. 1 produced the sum of Rs. 100/ -, all in shape of ten rupee G. C. notes, meant to be paid to the appellant and a preparation report was made by P. W. 8 wherein numbers of the G. C. notes were noted. P. W. 8 returned the notes to P. W. 1 and directed him to pay the money to the appellant, only on demand. P. W. 2 was asked to accompany P. W. 1 as overhearing witness. Thereafter P. Ws. 1 and 2 left for the Block Office and the rest of the members of the party followed them and waited near the Block Office building. P. Ws. 1 and 2 met the appellant in the main office room of the Block. The appellant told P. W. 2 to receive payment of his dues in respect of the work of a road of which he had taken contract and bill for which had been finalised. The appellant also told P. Ws. 1 and 2 to meet him at about 1 p.m. when he would be going out for lunch. At about 12 -30 p.m., P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Block Cashier P. W. 5 and P. W. 2 received a sum of Rs. 800/ - from P.W. 5. When P. W. 2 received this payment, the appellant went out of the office room giving indication to P. Ws. 1 and 2 to follow him. Outside the Block Office, the appellant demanded Rs. 40/ - from P. W. 2 and P. W. 2 gave the said amount to the appellant in shape of ten -rupee G. C. notes which the appellant put inside his right side pant pocket. Then, on demand by the appellant P. W. 1 also paid him Rs. 100/ - and the appellant put that amount inside the same pocket also. P. W. 1 thereafter gave the pre -arranged signal and the vigilance party rushed to the spot from the place where they were waiting. At the spot, P. W. 8 gave identities of himself and other members of the vigilance party to the appellant and demanded production of the bribe money of Rs. 100/ - received by him from P. W. 1. The appellant became perplexed and mum and then fumbled. On repeated demands, the appellant produced Rs. 100/ -from his pant pocket and made over to P. W. R. This money was handed over by P W 8 to P. W. 3, who compared the numbers of the G. C. notes and found those tallying with the numbers noted in Ext. 3/1. P. W. 8 then took personal search of P. W. 1, but found nothing While he was about to make personal search of P. W. 2, the latter made production of Rs. 760/ - and informed about his payment of Rs. 40/ -, out of the total amount of Rs. 800/ - received by him, to the appellant. Then, on demand by P. W. 8, the appellant also produced the said amount of Rs. 40/ - along with another small amount and some sundry articles from his pocket. All these were seized.

(3.) THE learned trial Court has accepted the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 along with that of P. Ws. 7 and 8 for holding the appellant guilty. Though arguments were advanced before him relating to ill -feeling between the appellant and P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3, yet the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that P. W. 3 the Chairman had no knowledge about the report by the appellant against him. He has further held that nothing has been brought out on record to discredit the testimony of these witnesses and the discrepancies found in the evidence are minor.