Mere recovery of bribe money is insufficient for conviction; both demand and acceptance of bribe must be proved to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Judgment :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The Appellant, having been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short referred to as “the P.C. Act”) by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baleswar in T.R. Case No.14 of 2007 (V.G.R. No.32 of 2001), was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for one month more vide judgment and the order dated 23.11.2011.

2. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that, the son of the complainant received fracture injury in a road accident, for which he was shifted to the Baripada Medical for treatment. At that time, Dr. Sudhir Kumar Mohapatra, the accused (to be referred as Doctor hereinafter) was his treating physician being an Orthopedic Specialist, while other appellant (to be referred as attendant later). The complainant approached to the accused doctor for medicine, but even after consuming the medicine, the bleeding could not be stopped. Hence, again the complainant complained regarding the bleeding from the wound of his son to the doctor, who asked for bribe of Rs.300/- with assurance to cure his son. Thereafter, the appellant came and stated to him to give Rs.300/- for the doctor and Rs.400/- towards plastering of the wound, failing which the plaster cannot be done. Being aggrieved, the complainant went to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Baripada and lodged a complaint.

4. The appellant (attendant) and the co-accused (Doctor) were charged of the offence punishable under Sections - 7 & 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and were put to trial.

5. The prosecution has examined six witnesses and exhibited about ten documents to substantiate its plea. P.W.1 was the Additional Treasury Officer, who was an accompanying witness. P.W.2 was the C.D.M.O., who had accorded the sanction for prosecution of the accused person. P.W.3 was the complainant, whereas P.Ws.4 & 5 were the occurrence witnesses, those who were part of the trap. P.W.6 was the Investigating Officer of the case.

6. The trial Court, by heavily relying upon the testimony of the complainant (P.W.3) and the I.O., P.W.6, although acquitted the accused Doctor, however, found the present appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section-7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly sentenced on that count.

7. The present appellant has preferred this appeal, whereas the prosecution accepted the judgment and did not question the acquittal recorded in favour of the Doctor.

8. The appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court vis-à-vis the present appellant would reflect from the following paragraphs of the impugned judgment:

“15. Here in the instant case there is insufficient evidence on record to believe that the accused-Doctor made initial demand of bribe and made the second demand for bribe or gave instruction to the complainant to give the amount to the attendant or instructed the attendant to receive the amount from the complainant on his behalf. Had he instructed either to the complainant to give the money to the attendant or instructed the attendant to accept the money on his behalf then certainly the accused-attendant would have shown his accusing finger to the Doctor during the course of his examination U/S. 313 Cr.P.C. that he accepted the money from the complainant as per the instruction/hint given by the Doctor. Rather the attendant-accuse