JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. — This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31.10.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.6 of 2003 convicting and sentencing the appellant for commission of offence under Section 7 read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short, “the Act”).

2.The facts leading to the prosecution case are as follows:

The complainant-Kasinath Hota had applied for a new telephone connection for operating a public call booth. He had deposited the requisite fees with the Department and an advice note was issued in his favour. The complainant on several occasions met the accused and requested him to provide the connectivity as the accused was then serving as a regular Mazdoor incharge of Manikagoda Exchange. The accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- from the complainant on 8.1.2003. Therefore, on 11.1.2003 the complainant lodged an FIR before the SP, CBI, Bhubaneswar who directed G.R. Mohanty, Inspector, CBI, Bhubaneswar to take up the investigation of the case. A trap was arranged on the same date. At the instance of the Inspector, CBI, the complainant, two other independent witnesses and other staff of the CBI convened a pre-trap discussion and the usual demonstrations were made by the CBI officials before the witnesses. The complainant produced two five-hundred rupee G.C. notes which were tainted with phenolphthalein powder. The notes were kept inside the shirt pocket of the complainant. He was instructed to hand over the same to the accused only on demand. Thereafter, the trap party proceeded to the spot. Arriving there at about 6 P.M. the complainant accompanied by one Rasananda Munda proceeded to the house of the accused. The accused was sitting on the front verandah of his house. Seeing the complainant, he demanded the cash. The complainant handed over the currency notes to him. Then as per the previous arrangement, the accompanied witnesses gave indication by beeping a torch light thrice. The trap laying party along with other CBI officials and the other independent witnesses proceeded to the spot and challenged the accused that he had accepted the bribe money from the complainant. Though the accused denied his complicity at first, he admitted to have done so. Thereafter, he was taken to the entrance room of his house where his hands were dipped in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. Such pink colour-wash of both his hands were kept in two separate bottles which were duly sealed and signed by the CBI officials and witnesses. As the accused shouted that he had been falsely implicated by the complainant in a CBI case, a crowd of local residents gathered there and snatched away the accused from the clutches of the CBI officials. The stand taken by the accused at the first instance is that the complainant on the previous occasion (Raja Sankranti day of 2002) had taken a sum of Rs.1000/- from him for treatment of his ailing niece which he not only did not refund the amount in spite of his several demands earlier but also on the pretext of refunding the amount got him trapped by CBI officials by raising false and vexatious allegations that he wanted illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- for providing telephone connectivity. The local people assaulted the complainant as well as the CBI officials because of which he had been false implicated in the case.

3.The plea of the defence is one of complete denial reiterating the above facts.

4.In support of the case, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses and the defence examined three witnesses. The prosecution exhibited nine documents which were marked Exts. 1 to 9. The defence did not produce any documentary evidence. The material objects were marked as M.Os. I to IV. P.W.3-Ekamra Kabi is the complainant. P.W.2-Ratan Majhi is an officer of Allahabad Bank. P.W.4-Rasananda Munda is an officer of Canara Bank who accompanied the complainant to pay the G.C. notes in question to the