JUDGMENT :

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 34 of 1992 convicting the appellant of the charge under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months for payment of fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for a period of one month for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with payment of fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for conviction under Section 13(2) of the Act; with stipulation that the sentences would run concurrently, have been called in question in this appeal.

2. Prosecution case is as under :-

The appellant was working as an Amin during the settlement operation. The informant (P.W.2) found a reduction of area of 1 dec. in respect of his homestead land in the Parcha that he received during the settlement operation. So, he applied for correction of the same. It is stated that on 13.03.1991, the appellant took the measurement of the said homestead land and asked him to come to the office for further discussion. So, on the next date, when P.W.1 met the appellant in his office for the purpose of production of the documents in support of his case of illegal reduction of the area of his homestead land in the Parcha, the appellant demanded for a sum of Rs. 100/- to be paid to him for doing the said work and insisted for the said payment even after P.W.2 expressed his inability for the same. Thus, P.W.2 finding no other alternative paid a sum of Rs.20/- along with an application affixing Court Fees for such redressal of his grievance.

It is next stated that the appellant told him to bring the rest amount on 30.03.1991 afternoon. So, P.W.2 approached the Vigilance Officials and accordingly a trap was laid and thereafter the appellant was caught on receipt of a sum of Rs. 80/- from the P.W.2 in the settlement camp at Dharmasala near Jagannath Temple. Finally, charge-sheet being placed and sanction being given for the said prosecution, the appellant faced the trial for the above offence.

3. During the trial the appellant specifically took the plea that the matter was no more with him concerning the redressal of grievance of P.W.2 as regards to the reduction of the area of his homestead land as alleged and, therefore, the appellant had no reason or occasion to make such demand. The factum of demand of bribe is denied. It is also stated that P.W.2 having already filed a review petition which had already been dismissed by then, the case has been foisted against him bearing grudge that it is the appellant who was instrumental in reducing the area of his homestead land to detrimental to his interest.

4. The prosecution during trial examined seven witnesses whereas defence examine none. P.W.1 is the Senior Clerk of Sub-Collector's Office, Jajpur and an overhearing witness giving signal about receipt of bribe money P.W.2 is the informant whereas P.W.3 is the magisterial witness and witness to preparation and trap who had compared the numbers of the seized notes. P.W.4 is the scientific officer of SFSL who examined the solution and found all the bottles A, B and C containing phenolphthalein. The peon of the office of Settlement who is a witness to seizure is P.W.5 when P.W.6 is the settlement officer who accorded sanction. The investigating officer is P.W.7.

5. The trial Court upon consideration and analysis of evidence has held the prosecution to have established its case beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand of bribe by the appellant and so also its receipt. The trial Court found that the evidence of P.W.2 that appellant had gone to measure his land and took Rs. 20/- from him to do his work is acceptable the appellant must have found that tenants of other two plots had to be made parties and therefore obtained two applications Exts.9 and 10 and therefor