The court affirmed that directing a complainant to deal with an alleged bribe collector constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence of complicity in corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Judgment:

Chittaranjan Dash, J.

1. The legality, propriety, and correctness of the order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the learned court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Bargarh in C.T.R. Case No. 20/34 of 2022/2024, whereby the learned court refused to discharge the Petitioner, has been called into question.

2. The background facts of the case, in brief, are that the Petitioner, while serving as the Executive Officer of the NAC, Bijepur in the district of Bargarh, is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification. According to the prosecution, the complainant, namely Dr. Madan Meher, had engaged his Bolero Plus vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-17P-6918 on hire by the NAC, Bijepur on a monthly rent of Rs. 28,000/-. It is alleged that the Petitioner, being the Executive Officer of the NAC, Bijepur, along with the Accountant, Sri Manas Kumar, demanded Rs. 2,000/- per month as bribe in respect of the vehicle engaged by the NAC. As the rent for the month of April 2020 remained pending, the complainant requested the Petitioner to release the payment; however, the Petitioner instructed him to speak with the Accountant. When the complainant thereafter approached the Accountant, he demanded Rs. 14,000/- towards illegal gratification for the period from October 2019 to April 2020 @ Rs. 2,000/- per month, stating that the cheque towards the rent for April 2020 would be issued only upon such payment. Finding no alternative, the complainant unwillingly agreed to meet the Accountant’s illegal demand. Being aggrieved, he reported the matter to the Vigilance authorities seeking legal action. Upon receiving the complaint, the Vigilance police registered an FIR and prepared to lay a trap. After completing the mandatory formalities, including demonstration and application of phenolphthalein powder to the G.C. notes, the raiding party proceeded to the NAC Office, Bijepur on 19.05.2020. On the Accountant’s demand, the complainant, in the presence of the accompanying witness, paid the bribe money to the Accountant, Sri Manas Kumar Dash. Upon receiving the said sum of Rs. 14,000/-, the Accountant retained Rs. 12,000/- with him and instructed the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the Executive Officer. Following such instruction, the complainant went to the chamber of the Executive Officer (the Petitioner herein) to offer Rs. 2,000/-, but shortly thereafter returned and handed over the said amount to the Accountant, as the Executive Officer allegedly advised him to give the entire money to the Accountant. Thereafter, the trap team conducted verification. The hand-wash of the Accountant, when dipped in the chemical solution, turned pink. The tainted G.C. notes were recovered from the drawer of the Accountant, and necessary seizures were effected.

Upon completion of investigation, it was revealed that the Petitioner, in collusion with the Accountant, had committed criminal misconduct as public servants by demanding Rs. 14,000/- from the complainant for releasing the hire charges of the Bolero Plus vehicle for April 2020. Both were found to have committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, assailing the impugned order, submitted that the learned court, while rejecting the Petitioner’s prayer for discharge from the alleged charges, failed to apply its judicial mind and did not properly appreciate the distinct nature of duties assigned to the Petitioner and the Accountant. According to Mr. Mishra, the allegations in the FIR, the charge-sheet, as well as the statements of witnesses, do not contain even a whisper implicating the Petitioner in the alleged demand for bribe. It is further submitte