The proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient without evidence of demand and acceptance.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Sahoo, J. - The respondent Rabinarayan Patra faced trial in the Court of learned Additional Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.16 of 1997 for offences punishable under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 'P.C. Act') on the accusation that on 30.06.1993 he being employed as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sakhigopal and being a public servant accepted for himself illegal gratification amounting to Rs.200/- (rupees two hundred) other than legal remuneration and also accepted for himself gratification of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) other than the legal remuneration on 03.07.1993 from Sudarsan Behera (P.W.5) as a motive and reward for delivering two sale deeds to him and thus by corrupt and illegal means obtained for himself the gratification money at his office as pecuniary advantage by abusing his official position as such public servant without any public interest.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 22.09.2009 has been pleased to hold that the investigation having been done by the trap laying officer who is an interested witness for the prosecution, the prosecution case is susceptible to reasonable doubt and accordingly held the respondent not guilty and acquitted him of all the charges.

The State of Odisha, G.A Vigilance has preferred this appeal challenging the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal.

2. The prosecution case, as per the first information report lodged by Sudarsan Behera (P.W.5) of village Bira Ramachandrapur is that his brother-in-law Dhruba Charan Behera purchased two plots from Sasimani Jena and Dibakar Jena (P.W.2) by executing two separate sale deeds vide sale deed nos.849 and 850 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sakhigopal after depositing all the required fees as per law and the vendors of both the sale deeds gave the receipts to P.W.5 to obtain the sale deeds from the office of the Sub-Registrar. As the sale deeds were to be delivered to the vendee within two to three days of its registration, on 30.06.1993 P.W.5 met the respondent who was the Junior Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Sakhigopal in his office and asked him to deliver the sale deeds, but the respondent demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,200/- (rupees two thousand two hundred) from P.W.5 and told that if he would not pay such amount, both the sale deeds would be objected for registration on the ground of under-valuation for which P.W.5 shall have to pay an excess amount of Rs.4,500/- (rupees four thousand five hundred). Being apprehensive of under-valuation, P.W.5 agreed to give Rs.500/- to the respondent as gratification against his will, but the respondent did not agree to it and threatened to send the sale deeds for under-valuation on the same day. However, after much persuasion of P.W.5, the respondent asked P.W.5 to give him Rs.1,200/- (rupees one thousand two hundred). P.W.5 paid Rs.200/- to the respondent in advance as gratification instantly and further assured the respondent to give the balance of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) within ten days against his will. P.W.5 then met the respondent on 02.07.1993 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sakhigopal and expressed his inability in arranging the money and requested him to take Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) and to hand over both the sale deeds to him, however the respondent did not pay any heed to the request of P.W.5 and got annoyed and insisted for payment of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand).

Finding no way out, P.W.5 told the respondent that he would arrange Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) and give the same to him on 03.07.1993 in the afternoon and the balance amount of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) would be paid within five days thereafter for taking the sale deeds. P.W.5 requested the respondent not to under-value the sale deeds to which the respondent agreed. P.W.5 reported in writing the matter to the Superintendent of