The conviction for bribery requires clear evidence of both demand and acceptance, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, with independent witnesses being essential to support claims of illegal gratification.

Judgment :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 09.12.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.06 of 1990, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the commission of the offences under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the I.P.C. and sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo R.I. for a period of one year on each count and directed the sentences to run concurrently.

2. The accused-appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court, hence, the present Criminal Appeal.

3. Heard Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel appeared for the appellant and Mr. M.S. Rizvi, learned Additional Standing Counsel appeared for the State-Vigilance.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant, Ramsai Banchhor, prepared the pension papers of his father, who served as a Sweeper in Burla Medical College, Burla and retired from his post six years back due to continuous illness, and finalized the pension papers at Bhubaneswar in the Office of the Accountant General, Orissa and Director of Treasuries. The accused-appellant, who served as a Senior Clerk at Sub-Treasury, Burla, agreed to finalize the retirement accounts of the complainant’s father subject to payment of 10% of the total amount which came to be around Rs.1,400/-. Upon the complainant’s plea of inability to pay such a hefty amount, the accused-appellant agreed to a reduced amount to Rs.900/- to be paid after the withdrawal of the pension amount. Aggrieved by such demand, the complainant reported the demand of bribe by the accused-appellant to the S.P. (Vigilance) at Sambalpur, who in turn arranged to set up a trap against the accused on 28.06.1988. The accused-appellant was caught red- handed while accepting the bribe money from the complainant upon his demand. Accordingly, the accused was charged and put to trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents, whereas the defence presented a stance of complete denial and false implication. The accused in his defence examined 2 witnesses, i.e., D.W.1 and D.W.2. Out of the 5 witnesses presented by the prosecution, P.W.1 was the complainant himself; P.W.2, a friend of the complainant was also a member of the trap party, who gave signal to the Raiding party members; P.W.3 was the Director of Treasuries, Orissa at Bhubaneswar, who accorded the sanction to prosecute the accused; P.W.4 was the Executive Magistrate; and P.W.5 was the Vigilance Inspector who headed the Raiding party during the trap set up to entrap the accused, while accepting the bribe.

6. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the claim of the accused-appellant, that the amount of Rs.900/- was a loan taken by him from the complainant, is false, and that the prosecution was successful in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and thus convicted the accused on all the charges and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year on each count without giving him the benefit of the P.O. Act after recording its finding in relevant part of paragraph-5 of its judgement, which reads as under:

5. To ask for a loan from a retired Government servant ailing is also derogatory to official conduct rules so far as the accused as a Senior Clerk in the office of Subtreasury Burla is concerned. Amongst all the persons in the world he did not arrange a loan but from this old man whose pension papers were on his table for clearance, he made request for