IMPORTANT POINT
When prosecution case was that money as illegal gratification was demanded by Revenue Inspector by petitioner accused only counted the money lying on table as per directions of RI offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act could not said prima facie made out against petitioner accused.

JUDGMENT

M. M. Das, J.—The order dated 31.1.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 7 of 2006 where under he has taken cognizance of offence under Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the petitioner and another, is impugned in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. An F.I.R. was lodged on 27.2.2005 by one Ramakanta Nayak, inter alia, alleging that after a Civil Suit bearing No.897 of 1990 being decreed on 27.11.2004, the father of the informant filed a Mutation Case, being Mutation Case No. 1501 of 2005 on 14.2.2005. The Tahasildar, Balasore on receiving the application for mutation from the father of the informant, directed the Revenue Inspector Narayan Chandra Behera to enquire and submit a report by 21.2.2005. The informant visited the Office of the Revenue Inspector and requested him to expedite the inquiry. The Revenue Inspector Narayan Chandra Behera demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 500 to do the needful. Upon such demand being made, the informant stated his inability to pay the amount. The R.I. thereupon demanded at least Rs. 400 to give the report. The informant apprehending that the R.I. may give an adverse report, handed over Rs. 100 to him on that day. The R.I. thereupon threatened that if the balance amount of Rs. 300 is not paid to him by the coming Monday, he will give an adverse report to the Tahasildar. Apprehending that, after so much of labour, the father of the informant may not get the fruits of the decree, he agreed to pay Rs. 300 to the R.I. on 28.2.2005.

3. Upon receipt of the above F.I.R., the S.P., Vigilance finding that a cognizable offence is made out under the Act, directed Shri S. K. Mohanty, Inspector of Vigilance to take up investigation and lay a trap. From the report of the Inspector of Vigilance, it appears that on 28.2.2005 the Inspector of Vigilance, Shri S. K. Mohanty, in presence of other staff laid the trap. One of the witnesses, namely, Sankarsan Mohallik, Forester was instructed to follow the informant to the Office of the R.I. maintaining a reasonable distance, to hear the conversation. After following due procedure of personal search of the witnesses and demonstration of the use of phenolphthalein powder and reaction with Sodium Carbonate solution the tainted money of Rs. 300 was wrapped in a white paper and kept in the pocket of the informant who was instructed to deliver the same to the R.I. on demand only. On the money being handed over to the R.I. Narayan Chandra Behera, others entered into the room and the Inspector disclosed his identity.

4. The accused Narayan Chandra Behera stated that he has not accepted any bribe. On enquiry from the informant, it was ascertained that the R.I. demanded the money and directed his staff to keep the same and the money was accepted by the present petitioner. When the hands of both the R.I. Narayan Chandra Behera and the present petitioner were washed with Sodium Carbonate solution, it was seen that on washing of the hand of the present petitioner, the colour of the solution turned light pink. However, the colour of the solution did not change in the case of the R.I.

5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under the afore-mentioned sections of the P.C. Act as stated earlier and the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar on receiving the case record from the C.J.M., Balasore, perused the same and took cognizance of the said offences against the petitioner and the Revenue Inspector Narayan Chandra Behera.

6. Mrs. Sujata Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner is contrary to law and not based on any material produced by the Vigilance Police. She drew the attention of the Court to the first Information Report wherein the informant has clearly stated that demand for payment of Rs. 500