IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption of guilt once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of bribery.

JUDGMENT

G. Satapathy, J.

The legal representative of deceased-appellant through this appeal U/S. 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. impugns the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed on 18.10.2011 by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.31 of 2002 convicting the appellant-Golakh Chandra Routray since deceased for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof, to undergo SI for a further period of three months.

2. Be it noted, the original appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and was substituted by his wife vide an order passed on 19.04.2022 in an application made U/S.394 of Cr.P.C. Since the appellant had expired, the substantive sentence imposed against him remains unworkable, no matter the LR of the deceased-appellant is permitted to challenge the conviction of the appellant and sentence of fine against him in view of the decision Ramesan(Dead) through L.R. Girija A v. State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 45.

3. The prosecution case in brief was, one Pruthwiraj Mishra(PW3) had purchased a piece of land in Bhatra area of Sambalpur town to construct a house thereon, but the deceased-appellant being the dealing assistant of Sambalpur Development Authority (SDA) was avoiding to take steps for approval of the plan as submitted by PW3 on one or some pretext and finally, the deceased-appellant disclosed his intention by demanding bribe of Rs.1,000/- for processing the approval of plan of PW3. Being dissatisfied, PW3 approached the Superintendent of Vigilance by way of an FIR vide Ext.3 to take action against the deceased-appellant. Accordingly, a trap was laid by DSP Vigilance (PW4), who caught the deceased-appellant while receiving the bribe of Rs.1,000/- from PW3. Further, another DSP Vigilance (PW5) conducted the investigation and submitted chargesheet against the deceased-appellant for commission of offence U/Ss.7/13(2)/13(d) of the Act resulting in trial in the present case after the deceased-appellant abjured the charge.

4. In support of its charge, the prosecution examined all together five witnesses and relied upon the documents under Exts.l to 13 as against oral evidence of one witness (DW1) together with documentary evidence Exts.A to F by the defence. Besides, the prosecution also identified the brass seal as MOI in the evidence. The plea of the deceased-appellant was one of complete denial and false implication.

5. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), I Ifflv I Sambalpur convicted the deceased-appellant by the impugned judgment and sentenced him to the punishment indicated supra.

6. In the course of hearing, Mr. A. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant while taking this Court through the copy of the FIR has submitted that there was discrepancy in time in lodging of FIR at the relevant column and in the body of the FIR and there being no corroboration to the evidence of the decoy, it would not be safe to uphold the conviction and sentence against the deceased-appellant. Accordingly, Mr. Bhuyan has prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Rizvi, learned ASC-Vigilance, however, by taking this Court through the evidence has submitted that there is no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence since the deceased appellant was found demanding and accepting the bribe, his conviction cannot be legally questioned.

8. After having considered the rival submissions upon perusal of record, this Court in order to examine the pregnability of the impugned conviction and sentence of the deceased-appellant proceeds to scrutinize and appreciate the evidence available on record. P.W.3 being the decoy has testified in the Court that he had pur