Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe must be established beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 78 of 1998 convicting the appellant for offence punishable U/S. 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d)/7 of the 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.1,000/-, in default whereof, to undergo further RI for one month for each count, the appellant named above has preferred this appeal.

2. The prosecution case in brief is, on 05.09.1997 P.W.5-Satya Sekhar Rath a resident of Plot No. 737/2093 of Jaydev Vihar, Bhubaneswar had submitted two attested photocopy of approved building plan relating to above plot with an application duly filled in and signed by himself and his two brothers to SDO PH rent Subdivision, Bhubaneswar for providing sewerage connection to his house, which was received by the appellant as the Dealing Assistant and according to his instruction, P.W.5 met the J.E. Sri R.N.Sahu who made necessary endorsement on the application for deposit of the required fees and such file was processed, but when P.W.5 contacted the appellant on 29.09.1997 to do his work, the appellant advised him to deposit security amount of Rs.1500/- and accordingly P.W.5 deposited the aforesaid amount vide receipt No. F714015 dated 29.09.1997 and thereafter, P.W.5 met the appellant and requested him to send the file to concerned division, but the appellant demanded Rs.200/- as the bribe to do the same. Finding no alternative, P.W.5 paid Rs.200/- to the appellant as bribe, but the appellant being dissatisfied again demanded Rs.300/- more as a bribe to expedite the work. However, P.W.5 paid only Rs.100/- more, but the appellant asked him to pay the balance amount of Rs.200/- on 30.09.1997.

Being aggrieved, P.W.5 approached the S.P.Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division by way of an FIR under Ext.16 and accordingly, the OIC, Khurda Vigilance P.S. registered P.S. Case No. 40 of 1997 and accordingly, the Inspector of Vigilance P.W.7- V.Rama Rao was entrusted with the investigation. In the course of investigation, a trap laying party was formed consisting Vigilance officials, two other Government officials and the informant. The trap laying party after completing the preparatory meeting proceeded to the spot and P.W.5 being accompanied by P.W.2-Damodar Das went to the appellant who demanded and accepted Rs.200/- as a bribe from P.W.5 and was accordingly caught by the raiding party. The numbers of the GC notes earlier noted down matched with the numbers of the GC notes recovered from the appellant. Further, the hand wash and pocket wash of the appellant were taken and the solutions were kept in separate bottles after duly labeling and sealing the same. Accordingly, a detection report was prepared after successful trap and thereafter, P.W.7 proceeded with the investigation, in the course of which, he seized the exhibits, such as bottles containing hand wash, pocket wash and sample solution which were sent to SFSL for chemical examination and sanction was obtained from Executive Engineer-P.W.1, to launch prosecution against the appellant. On completion of investigation, P.W.7 submitted charge sheet against the appellant and accordingly, cognizance of offence U/Ss. U/S. 13(2)