The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires unequivocal proof of demand and acceptance of bribe; merely recovering money does not suffice if the demand is unproven.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. This appeal by the convict assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.10.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No.7 of 1995 (V) convicting the convict for offences U/Ss.7/ 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the “Act”) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default whereof, to undergo RI for three months more for offence U/S.7 of the Act and to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof, to undergo RI for six months more for offence U/S.13(1)(d) read with (2) of the Act with stipulation of the sentences to run concurrently.

2. Briefly stated, the convict-Dibakar Sethi was working as a Record Keeper in the Tahasil Office, Borigumma and on 14.03.1995, the complainant Anamu Amanatya of Sunarbeli Nuagaon had applied for the certified copy of Record of Right (ROR) of his brother-in-law, but the convict demanded bribe of Rs.50/- for supplying the same. Finding no way out, the complainant PW1- Anamu Amanatya approached the DSP, Vigilance, Jeypore with an FIR under Ext.1 and, accordingly, Berhampur Vigilance PS Case No.7 of 1995 was registered and the DSP, Vigilance PW9-Rama Kanta Sahu was asked to lay the trap. Accordingly, PW9 successfully laid the trap on 22.03.1995 by successfully requisitioning independent official witnesses and observing the formalities of the trap and the convict was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.50/- from PW1 and the tainted money was recovered from his official table. After transaction of the bribe, PW9 caught hold the convict and took his both hand washes in sodium carbonate solution and the tainted money recovered from the convict was tallied with the numbers noted earlier in the preparatory meeting and the same was seized. On successful completion of the detection, PW9 prepared a detection report in presence of all the witnesses and, thereafter, forwarded the convict to the Court after arresting him.

3. PW9 also continued with the investigation in the course of which he examined the witnesses, sent the hand washes of the convict collected in separate bottles duly labeled and sealed at the time of trap to Forensic Laboratory for chemical examination and he after obtaining sanction order against the convict, submitted charge-sheet against him for commission of offences U/Ss.7/13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act resulting in the trial in the present case when the convict denied to the charge for aforesaid offences.

4. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses such as PWs.1 to 9, proved certain documents under Ext.1 to 13 as well as identified material objects under MOI to V in evidence as against the oral evidence of two witnesses DWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence under Exts.A and B by the defence. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW1-Anamu Amanatya is the complainant and PW2-Basanta Kumar Tripathy is the accompany witness, whereas PW3-Raj Kishore Padhy and PW7- Mohamad Abdul Jaleel are the two official witnesses to pre trap arrangement, PW4-Sashibhusan Panda is the Vigilance-ASI who demonstrated pre trap arrangement and PW5-Raghunath Das is another official witness who produced the official files of the convict before the Collector for sanction. PW6-Raghu Amanatya is the brother-in-law of PW1, whereas PW8-Surasen Jani is another official witness to the trap, who had tallied the GC notes soon after the trap and lastly, PW9-Rama Kanta Sahu is the Tr