IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the demand and acceptance of a bribe by a public servant can be proven through credible witness testimony, and the presumption of guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act places the burden of proof on the accused to provide a satisfactory explanation.

JUDGMENT

G. Sataoathv, J.

The legal representatives 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 10.03.1995 by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.06 of 1987 convicting the appellant-Bansidhar Sahu since deceased for commission of offences punishable U/Ss.5(2) read with 5(1)(5) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for one year with fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof, to undergo RI for a further period of two months, but no separate sentence was passed against the convict for offence U/S.161 of IPC.

2. Be it noted, the original appellant died during the pendency of this appeal and was substituted by his legal heirs vide an order passed on 20.10.2003 in an application made U/S.394 of Cr.P.C. Since the appellant had already expired, the substantive sentence imposed against him remains unworkable, no matter the LRs of the deceased-appellant is permitted to challenge the conviction of the appellant and the sentence of fine against him in view of the decision in Ramesan(Dead) through L.R. Girija A v. State of Kerala; (2020) 3 SCC 45.

3. The prosecution case in gist was that in the month of April and May, 1983, the deceased-appellant was working as a Head Clerk in the office of Sub-Registrar, Khandapara and on 15.04.1983, PW3-Bimbadhar Behera and his brothers executed a sale deed in favour of PW7-Bhramar Parida who requested his cousin Informant-PW2-Ramachandra Parida to receive the sale deed and, thereby, PW7 had authorized PW2 to receive the aforesaid sale deed. Accordingly, on 02.05.1983, PW2 produced the receipt before the deceased-appellant to give the original sale deed, but the later demanded Rs.50/- as bribe for the same by cautioning that if the bribe was not paid, the sale deed would be sent to Collector, Puri for undervaluation and accordingly, asked PW2 to come on 04.05.1983 with the bribe money. Finding no way out, PW2 reported to the AIG (Vigilance), Cuttack by way of an FIR vide Ext.1 to take action against the deceased-appellant and such FIR was registered vide Cuttack Vigilance PS Case No.16 of 1983 and, accordingly, a trap was laid with assistance of DSP, Vigilance-PW15 Sunil Kumar Pradhan and investigating officer, PW16-Arjun Pradhan with others and the deceased-appellant was caught while receiving the bribe of Rs.50/- from PW2, whereafter PW16 conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the deceased-appellant for commission of offence punishable U/Ss.5(2) read with 5(1)(5) of the Act and Section 161 of the IPC resulting in trial in the present case after the deceased-appellant abjured the charge.

4. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined all together 16 witnesses PW1 to 16, proved 19 documents under Exts.1 to 19 and identified Material Objects vide MO.I to I/4 and MO.II to VI as against no evidence whatsoever by the defence. The plea of the deceased-appellant in the course of trial was denial simplicitor, in addition to the plea in his statement U/S.313 of Cr.P.C. that he was not in charge of delivery of document and the document was in custody of the Sub-Registrar and that on 04.05.1983, while he was working, a person came and showed a receipt and he gave that receipt to Balunkeswar Mohanty to verify whether the document has been made ready and that the aforesaid person kept some money on his table and at that time, three persons caught hold of his hands and giving their identity as Vigilance Officers challenged him for accepting the bribe and that he denied to have taken bribe, but he was asked to count the money and accordingly, he counted the money and thereafter his hand wash was taken and detection report was prepared.

5. After appreciating the evidence on record upon hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar conv