JUDGMENT

B.K. PATEL, J. — The appellant having been convicted for commission of offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month as well as under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant was working as a clerk in the Regional Transport Office (R.T.O.), Sundargarh during the period of occur¬rence dealing with issue of driving licenses. Prosecution case is that the informant-decoy P.W.2, a resident of Rourkela, went to the R.T.O. on 13.10.1988 to obtain a driving license. The appel¬lant demanded bribe of Rs.150/- from him saying that unless he paid the amount he would not be issued with the license. In view of applicants’ demand, P.W.2 borrowed Rs.50/- from P.W.1 one of his friends who had come to the R.T.O., and paid to the appel¬lant. When P.W.2 met the appellant on 25.10.1988 the appellant told that the license was ready and would be delivered to him if he paid the balance bribe amount of Rs.100/-. On 26.10.1988 P.W.2 lodged written report Ext.10 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance at Rourkela stating therein that on 27.10.1988 he was going to pay the balance bribe amount to the appellant. The First Information Report Ext.10 was forwarded to the Superin¬tendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur and P.W.9 Inspector of Vigilance was entrusted with the investigation. In course of investigation P.W.9 laid a trap stated to have been prepared with the assistance of P.W.3 Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Rourkela against the appellant on 27.10.1988 in presence of raiding party comprising of P.W.7 another Inspector of Vigilance and P.W.8 Additional Commercial Tax Officer, Rourkela. The appel¬lant was caught red handed after accepting the tainted currency notes from P.W.2 towards illegal gratification as a motive for issuance of driving license. The tainted currency notes were seized. Hand wash of the appellant sent for chemical examination revealed presence of chemical powder with which the currency notes were smeared in course of preparation of the trap. On 31.12.1988 P.W.9 made over charge of investigation to P.W.4. On completion of investigation P.W.4 submitted charge-sheet for commission of offences under which the appellant stands convicted and accordingly charge was framed.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. In course of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant stated that he never demanded money from P.W.2 and that P.W.2 paid the amount of Rs.100/- towards donation to Red Cross Fund.

4. In order to substantiate the charge the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 9, and relied upon the documents marked Exts.1 to 11. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 have already been introduced. P.Ws. 5 and 6 were working as Peons in the R.T.O., Sundargarh. It is pertinent to point out that the inform¬ant P.W.2 as well as P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 did not support the prosecu¬tion case.

Only one defence witness, D.W.1, was examined on behalf of the appellant.

5. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appel¬lant that there is no evidence on record to show that the appel¬lant ever made any demand for money from P.W.2 as motive for issuing driving license. Plea of the appellant that P.W.2 paid him Rs.100/- towards donation to Red Cross Fund finds support from the evidence of D.W.1 as well as P.Ws.7 and 8. Having taken the Court through the evidence on record it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P., 2007 AIR SCW 9