KUMARI BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur, Ganjam in convicting the appellant for the offences punishable U/Ss. 13(2) r/w Section 13(I)(d) & Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short The P.C. Act ) and sentencing him to R.I. for one year for the offence punishable U/S. 13(2) r/w Section 13(I)(d) of the P.C. Act and further sentencing him to suffer R.I. for six months for the offence U/S. 7 of the P.C. Act directing the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) At the relevant time, the appellant was working as Progress Assistant in Baliguda Block. The complainant was a beneficiary under the IRDP Scheme of Baliguda Block and his name was sponsored to the State Bank of India, Baliguda for sanction of loan of Rs.19, 000/- for starting a cloth store. It is alleged in the written complaint dated 04.03.1998 presented to the D.S.P., Vigilance, Berhampur by the complainant that, while recommending the name of the complainant to avail the aforesaid loan benefit, the present appellant demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- for processing the application for recommending his name. However, the name of the complainant was recommended for availing the loan admittedly by the Block Development Officer and on 13.02.1998, he got the first installment of the loan. It is further alleged that on 13.02.1998 itself, the appellant reiterated his demand of Rs.1,000/- towards bribe, but the complainant expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount. On 26.02.1998, the complainant received the second installment of loan of Rs.5,000/-. After the complainant got the second installment of the loan amount, the appellant went to the house of the complainant and told his wife to inform the complainant to give him the demanded bribe. The complainant, however, did not fulfill the demand of the appellant. On 04.03.1998, the appellant again went to the house of the complainant and searched for him, but he was absent. The appellant told his wife in absence of the complainant that, she should inform the complainant to come to the Block Office on 05.03.1998 with the amount of Rs.500/-, which the complainant had to give to him. It is further alleged that, the appellant told the wife of the complainant that, if the bribe amount is not paid within the aforesaid period, his further installments will be blocked. The complainant, instead of paying the bribe, lodged a written report with the D.S.P., Vigilance, Berhampur vide Ext.9. The D.S.P., Vigilance, after receipt of the written report, made preparation and laid the trap. Investigation was taken up into the matter after the trap and after completion of the investigation, Charge Sheet was submitted against the appellant.

(3.) The defence plea is one of complete denial. The appellant, in his statement recorded U/S. 313 Cr. P.C., has specifically stated that, while he was busy in purchasing goods in the market, suddenly the complainant came and forcibly put some money into his pocket, which he immediately threw.