Establishing demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; failure to prove these elements results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.07.2014 passed by learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Mayurbhanj at Baripada in TC No.4 of 2013 convicting the appellant for offences punishable U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further RI for three months on each count, the appellant named above has preferred this appeal.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the BDO, Bangiriposi had issued work order in favour of the mother of PW3 Ratha Singh for construction of an Indira Awasa House and after receipt of the work order, the beneficiary had constructed the house and it was about to be completed except fixing of windows and doors, but the Junior Engineer, Bangiriposi Block namely Parameswar Nanda Goswami (hereinafter referred to as “the convict”) had measured the work and, accordingly, he demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- towards release of the first installment for the aforesaid construction work and Rs.600/- towards the percentage of the BDO, but PW3 requested him to disburse the amount because of his poverty. The convict, however, did not accede to the request and asked PW3 come on Monday on 03.04.2000 with bribe money. Finding no way out, on 03.04.2000 at about 9:10 am in the morning, PW3 lodged an FIR which was came to be registered as Balasore Vigilance PS Case No.15 of 2000 and at about 12 Noon, he(PW3) arrived at the Vigilance Office with aforesaid demanded bribe of Rs.2,600/-. Accordingly, on the instruction of the Vigilance Authority, a trap party was constituted and a preparatory meeting was held therein and thus, a trap was laid at the Block Office of Bangiriposi to catch the convict, if he demand and accepts the aforesaid bribe. In the course of trap, when the accused (convict) was demanding and accepting the bribe from the complainant, the Vigilance raiding party reached there and the convict on seeing the vigilance party threw away the currency notes, but he was detained by the trap party and his fingertips wash and the pocket wash was taken with sodium carbonate solution, which not only gave positive result, but also the serial number of the recovered GC notes from him tallied with the serial numbers of the notes earlier noted by PW1 Kabindra Kumar Sahoo. After observing all the formalities, the pocket wash and fingertips wash of the convict was kept in separate bottles duly labeled and sealed and the same were seized. Soon after the successful trap, inspector of vigilance Minaketan Das took up the investigation of this case, in the course of which, he examined the witnesses, seized relevant materials and documents and handed over the charge of investigation to PW4 Narayan Choudhury who in the course of investigation, obtained sanction order to launch prosecution against the convict under Ext.12 and also sent the pocket wash, hand wash and sample wash which were collected in separate sealed bottles to SFSL for chemical examination and subsequently, the chemical examination report was received under Ext.11. On conclusion of investigation, PW4 submitted charge-sheet against the convict for commission of offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act under which cognizance was taken, resulting in trial in the present case when the convict denied to the charge.

3. In the trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses vide PWs.1 to 6 and pr