Back
1952 Supreme(Ori) 26
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Panigrahi And Narasimham, JJ.
STATE - Appellant
Versus
MINAKETAN PATNAIK - Respondent
Govt. Appeal 3 Of 1951
Decided On : April 22, 1952
K.S.Jayarama Iyer, P.C.CHATTERJI
Headnote:
The accused, a Civil Supplies Officer, was acquitted of accepting a bribe of Rs. 200/- from a merchant named Purushottam. The prosecution alleged that the accused had demanded the bribe on two previous occasions and that Purushottam, acting as a decoy witness, had offered the money to the accused at his residence. The accused denied the charge and claimed that the money was planted under the inkstand in his office room after he had refused to accept it. The High Court held that the evidence of Purushottam and Bhoramall, another merchant who accompanied Purushottam, was not reliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe by the accused. The Court also held that the accused's explanation regarding what took place in his office room was substantially true and that the presumption created by Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been rebutted.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Civil Supplies Officer, was charged with accepting a bribe of Rs. 200/- from a merchant named Purushottam. The prosecution alleged that the accused had demanded the bribe on two previous occasions and that Purushottam, acting as a decoy witness, had offered the money to the accused at his residence. The accused denied the charge and claimed that the money was planted under the inkstand in his office room after he had refused to accept it.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the evidence of Purushottam and Bhoramall, another merchant who accompanied Purushottam, was not reliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe by the accused. The Court also held that the accused's explanation regarding what took place in his office room was substantially true and that the presumption created by Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been rebutted.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of Purushottam and Bhoramall was reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand of bribe by the accused. 3. Whether the accused's explanation regarding what took place in his office room was true. 4. Whether the presumption created by Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been rebutted.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence of Purushottam and Bhoramall was not reliable because they were accomplices in the crime and their evidence was not corroborated by any other independent evidence. 2. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe by the accused because there was no evidence to show that Purushottam had offered the money to the accused as a bribe. 3. The Court held that the accused's explanation regarding what took place in his office room was true because it was consistent with the evidence of the other witnesses and because there was no evidence to suggest that the accused was lying. 4. The Court held that the presumption created by Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been rebutted because the accused had given a satisfactory explanation for his possession of the money.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
PANIGRAHI, J.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by the Additional district Magistrate, Bolangir, in a case started against the respondent under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
( 2 ) THE accused was the Civil Supplies Officer at Bolangir on the day of occurrence. The case against him is that at or about 8-30 P. M. , on the 5th day of March 1950, he accepted a sum of Rs. 200/- as illegal gratification with a view to facilitating the export of kudo from Kantabanji railway station, Bolangir district, to Bombay Presidency. Briefly stated the facts are that Purushottam (P. W. 1) who was acting as purchasing agent of the firm of Shiva-shankar tricumjee, at Cuttack represented to Shivashankar on 18-12-49 that he had purchased 15,000 maunds of kudo for export and requested Shivshankar to obtain a permit for the same from the Supply and Transport Department, Cuttack. On 28-12-49. the Under-Secretary to the Government of Orissa, in the Supply and Transport Department (Food), addressed a letter (EXT. D) to the District magistrate, Bolangir, enquiring whether a stock of 15,000 maunds of kudo was available in the godown of Purushottam at Kantabanji for export at the instance of Shivashankar, and whether he would have any objection to an export permit for that quantity being granted. Before any reply was received from the District magistrate, the Government of Orissa granted a permit to Shivashankar on 30- 12-49 for exporting 15,000 maunds of kudo from Bolangir District. The District Magistrate protested against the action of Government in granting the permit vithout waiting for his reply to their reference dated 28-2-49. An enquiry had, in the meanwhile, been made by the Civil Supply staff of the district to verify whether P. W. 1 had, in fact, 15,000 maunds of kudo with him for export, and the Supervisor of Civil Supplies at Bolangir reported that P. W. 1 had no stock on hand and recommended that no permit could be granted as prayed for, but that a permit for 4,000 maunds could be recommended. Ultimately, the permit issued by the Government of Orissa for export of 15,000 maunds of kudo was withheld, and a fresh permit for the export of 4,000 maunds was isssued in its place on 21-1-50. It would appear that P. W. 1 then met the accused in his office at Bolangir on 25-1-50 and, it is alleged that at that interview the accused hinted to him that he would be in a position to facilitate further exports of kudo, in addition to the 4,000 maunds already permitted to be exported, if some money was paid to him. It is further stated that the
accused visited Kantabanji on 12-2-50 and demanded a bribe from P. W. 1 when he was looking into his accounts at his shop. In fact, it is alleged that he not only demanded money but also asked P. W. 1 to get some sarees for him. Five or six days later, Shivashankar himself visited Kantabanji where P. W. 1 reported to him about the demand made by the accused, and Shivshankar informed the C.. D. Inspector, Mr. M. N. Roy at cuttack on 27-2-50. On this information, the Inspector C.. D. and Shivshankar together started for kantabanji the same night and met P. W. 1 on 1-3-50 at his place. Thereafter, a trap was arranged by the Inspector on 5-3-50 and marked currency notes of the value of Rs. 200/- and four marked sarees were handed over to P. W. 1 for being offered to the accused at his residence. P. W. 1 accompanied by one bhoramall (P. W. 3) another merchant of Kantabanji, went to the residence of the accused at about 8-30 P. M. and both P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 offered some sarees which were rejected by the Civil Supplies Officer. The sum of Rs. 200/-in marked currency notes was offered by P. W. 1 and it is said that the accused accepted it. Within about half an hour of this incident, the C.. D. Inspector and the then additional District Magistrate, Bolangir, Mr. M. N. Dutta, who were waiting for the signal in the house of Mr. G. C. Sinha, Inspector of Schools a neighbour of the accused,
