RAMNARAYAN PATNAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The conviction of the appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code with imposition of sentence of R. I. for one year under the Prevention of Corruption Act with no separate sentence under Section 161. I.P.C. has occasioned this appeal. P.W. 3 the informant, was a sweeper in the headquarters hospital at Sambalpur and had been previously also working in Talapatia Government Dispensary and while posted at Talapatia had applied for leave for six months. He had also been occupying a rented house while employed at Sambalpur and had made an application to the C.D.M.O., Sambalpur for being allowed to draw his leave salary and house rent allowance for a period of 21 to 22 months. Besides, he had also moved the C.D.M.O. for his transfer from Sambalpur either to Dhama or Themera. It is the prosecution case that a few days prior to 23-2-79, the date of occurrence, P.W. 1 had met the C.D.M.O. for redress of his grievances when the appellant who was then the Head Clerk of the office of the C.D.M.O. had demanded Rs. 200/- from him as illegal gratification on promise of looking into his matters. P.W. 3 had expressed his capability only to pay Rs. 100/-. with an assurance that the balance would be paid after his dues were reimbursed. The agreement was reached to pay the amount on 21-2-79. P.W. 3 borrowed a sum of Rs. 100/- from one hotel-keeper Singh Babu of Phatak area, Sambatpur but informed the matters at the vigilance office and lodged the F.I.R. Ext. 3. Acting on the report, the S. P., Vigilance registered a case and laid a trap. On 23-2-79 P.W. 3 met the Vigilance Officer and produced ten currency notes each of ten rupee denomination before him, the Magistrate and other members of the raiding party including P.W. 6 the overhearing witness. The numbers of the notes were noted down and they were all treated with phenolphthalem powder. After observing all formalities, the raiding party proceeded to the headquarters hospital. P.Ws. 3 and 6 alone proceeded ahead. Finding the appellant busy in conversation with some other clerks, P.W. 3 waited for about ten minutes outside and when the other clerks had left the room, he entered the same. On the appellant's query as to whether the amount had been brought, P.W. 3 replied in the affirmative and handed over the tainted ten rupee notes to him who received the same in has right hand and kept them inside his left chest pocket. He again brought out the currency notes and kept the same on his table. P.W. 3 then came out of the room and the overhearing witness signalled the raiding party who promptly came in and confronted the appellant and after disclosing their identity demanded production of the tainted currency notes. The notes were on the table. The appellant though nervous, yet took the plea that P.W.3 had kept the bunch of notes on his table in spite of his protest. P.W. 5, the Sub-Inspector of Police, got the hands of the appellant washed and the handwash turned pink. The pocket of the appellant was also washed and the wash also turned pink in colour. The necessary seizures were made and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted.

(2.) The defence stand of the appellant was that P.W. 3 was a man of very dubious character, was addicted to drinking and was charged with several delinquencies and was finally dismissed from service. The appellant had never asked for any illegal gratification from him and on the date of occurrence while the appellant was in the office room writing something P.W. 3 had come there and forcibly put some currency notes in his hand which he threw away telling him that he could not help him in any manner and instead advised him to approach the A.D.M.O., Sambalpur. P.W. 3 abused the appellant and left the notes on the table and went away. The appellant then kept his pen in his pocket and asked one Prusty, a peon of the office, to call P.W. 3 back and while he was again writing something by taking out the pen, the raiding party reached and purported to carry out the raid.

(3.) The prosecution, to establish the case, examined eight witnesses of whom the only two material witnesses to the occurrence are on the P.W. 3, the complainant, and P.W. 6 the accompanying witness. P.W. 6 in his evidence supported the defence version and stated that P.W. 3 offered some amount to the appellant and in spite of his protest and refusal to accept the same, P.W. 3 forcibly places the same on the table of the appellant and came out of the room. The witness was permitted to be confronted by the Special Public Prosecutor with his previous statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C. where he had given a different version in line with the prosecution case. The witness is not one who inspires any credence and his evidence is not acceptable.