IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, J.
Sanatan Dash – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha (Vig.) – Respondent
CRLA No. 322 of 2003
Decided On : 21-10-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) - Bribe - Conviction - Sanction for prosecution - Non-Compliance of - Appellant was accused being a public servant employed as Accountant in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical accepting bribe - Whether sanction order is defective.
Finding of the Court:
In fairness of things, the role/task of trap laying officer should end immediately after the trap is over and the investigation after a successful trap is required to be conducted by another officer higher in rank than the trap laying officer - However, unless any prejudice is shown or any glaring infirmity or illegality in the investigation is established, the prosecution case cannot be discarded merely on that score - Court is constrained to give benefit of doubt to the appellant.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. SAHOO, J.
1. The appellant Sanatan Dash faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 26 of 1993 for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘1988 Act’) on the accusation that on 03.02.1992 being a public servant employed as Accountant in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical, Keonjhar, he accepted an amount of Rs. 500/- (rupees five hundred) from the complainant Satrughna Sahu (PW-1) as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for doing an official act i.e. passing his house rent bill amounting to Rs. 10,216/- (rupees ten thousand two hundred sixteen) in exercise of his official function and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 500/- from PW-1 by corrupt or illegal means and/or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 08.12.2003 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo R.I. for six months under section 13(2) of the 1988 Act and further to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo R.I. for six months under section 7 of the 1988 Act and both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as per the written report presented by PW-1 Satrughan Sahu before Sri. Nrusingha Charan Nayak (PW-6), Inspector in-charge, Vigilance, Keonjhar on 01.02.1992 is that he had a house at Telkoi in the district of Keonjhar, a portion of which had been let out to Electric Department for the last nine years to run the Electric Section Office. From 01.08.1986, the house rent was outstanding. PW-1 came to know from one clerk Sinha Babu in the office of the Executive Engineer that order had been passed to pay the house rent at the rate of Rs. 122/- per month from 01.08.1986 till 30.06.1990 and at the rate of Rs. 249/- per month from 01.07.1990 to 30.11.1991 totaling to Rs. 10,216/-. He met the appellant, who was the Accountant in that office three to four times to get his outstanding house rent dues, but appellant used to inform him that the money was not available. PW-1 then met the Executive Engineer on 22.01.1991 in that connection, who informed that he had already passed the bill and asked him to meet the appellant. PW-1 met the clerk Sinha Babu, who after consultation with the appellant told him to pay Rs. 800/- after which the bill would be passed and draft would be issued in his favour. PW-1 met the appellant and expressed his inability to pay such an amount. The appellant told him that they were taking Rs. 600/- from each person with whom agreement was entered into and finally told him that unless Rs. 500/- was given, the draft would not be issued. The appellant told PW-1 to come ready on 03.02.1992 with cash of Rs. 500/-. From an office peon, PW-1 could able to know that his file was lying with Sinha Babu and after payment of bribe money, the appellant would bring the file and make payment to him. It is further stated in the written report that PW-1 agreed to pay the bribe amount of Rs. 500/- to the appellant on 03.02.1992 against his will.
3. On receipt of such written report, Inspector of police, Vigilance, Keonjhar submitted it to Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Balasore Division, Cuttack for registration of the case and necessary direction, who in turn directed the officer-in-charge, Vigilance police Station, Balesore Division, Cuttack to register the case and PW-6 was directed to detect the case by laying a trap and to investigate the case. Accordingly, Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 02 dated 01.02.1992 was registered under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act.
4. PW-6 issued requisitions to S.D.V.O. Keonjha
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.