The judgment underscores the requirement for reliable and corroborated evidence in trap cases, and the need to disprove the alleged demand and acceptance of a bribe.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. Ray, J - The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 136/4 of 1999/98 convicting him under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for one year on each count and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count, in default, to undergo R.I. for six months more on each count. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently subject to benefit of set off. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that the appellant was working as Manager in Mines No. 3 of Orient Colliery, MCL at Jharsuguda and Mukteswar Choudhury (P.W.1) was a Majdoor under him. Due to long absence of said Mukteswar Choudhury (P.W.1) due to his ailment as Leprosy and T.B., his case was to be referred to the Medical Board. It is alleged that despite the request of P.W. 1 and his adopted son Sekhar Naik (P.W. 2), the same was not done by the appellant, as a result of which, they approached him on many occasion. Ultimately, the appellant demanded Rs. 20,000/- for reference of P.W. 1 to the Medical Board and when inability was expressed to pay the amount at a time, they were told to pay Rs. 1,000/- at the first instance for making the records ready. This was done ten to twelve days before the date of occurrence, i.e., 27.8.1997. Accordingly, the P.Ws. 1 and 2 discussed the matter between themselves and decided to lodge F.I.R. before the S.P., C.B.I. Then the written report (Ext. 10) signed by both P.Ws. 1 and 2 was taken by P.W. 2 to Bhubaneswar and on 25.8.1997 it was given to the S.P., C.B.I. Thereafter, the case was registered on the next day and trap was laid.

2. On 27.8.97 the raiding party arrived at Jharsuguda and sent for P.W.2 and two independent witnesses namely, Narottam Rath (P.W.3) and Pramod Kumar (P.W.4) who were Inspector, Customs and Central Excise and Development Officer of National Insurance, Jharsuguda respectively. In their presence in the Railway retiring room demonstration was made and P.W. 2 was introduced to them. They also went through the written report and the ten hundred rupee notes produced by P.W. 2 were tainted with phenolphthalein powder and the same was kept in an envelop and it was given to P.W. 2 to hand it over to accused on demand. At about 3 p.m. on that day they proceeded to the Quarters of the accused at Brajarajnagar and arrived there at about 4.15 p.m. Keeping the jeep 200 yards away from the house of accused they went to his quarters in batches of two and took their position near his quarter. At about 4.30 p.m. the jeep of the accused arrived and when accused came out of his house, P.W. 2 wished him and after the money was asked for he paid the same to the accused who after receiving it verified the notes by inserting his fingers inside the envelop and held it by his left hand. At that time seeing the signal of P.W. 2 the raiding party arrived and caught hold of the accused with the envelop (M.O.XV) in his hand. He was then taken to the nearby Police Station where his hand wash was collected and as it turned pink it was kept in two bottles (M.O.II and III). Thereafter the currency notes were brought out from M.O.XV and on comparison with the pre-trap memorandum (Ext. 15) the same was found to have tallied with each other. Then the case was further investigated and after chemical test as the hand wash was found to have contained phenolphthalein, the accused was charge-sheeted as indicated above.

3. The plea of the appellant-accused is one of denial and false implication as the appellant did not oblige in their nefarious design of providing employment to P.W. 2. The further case of the appellant is that P.W. 1 was punished in a departmental inquiry for long unauthorized absence and was reverted to the post of Badli. Another departmental proceeding was also pending against the P.W. 1 and the app