Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires clear, conclusive evidence of demand for bribe; lack of such evidence, alongside exceptional circumstances, justifies staying the conviction.

JUDGMENT

S.K. SAHOO, J.

1. The appellant Satchidananda Behera (hereinafter ‘the petitioner’) who was the Assistant Agricultural Engineer in the office of the District Agriculture Officer, Banki during the year 2009 has filed this interim application under section 389 of Cr.P.C. for stay of impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 31.05.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No. 62 of 2011 (218/2014) in convicting him under section 7 and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter ‘1988 Act’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand), in default, to undergo further R.I. for six months, however no separate sentence was imposed under section 7 of the said Act.

2. The accusation against the petitioner, in short, is that he demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.4,000/- (rupees four thousand) from the complainant Ashok Kumar Das (P.W.6) as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing official act viz. for preparing his bill towards digging of well in his favour and thereby committed criminal misconduct by corrupt means.

According to the prosecution case, P.W.6 got a work order in the month of May, 2009 from the office of the District Agriculture Officer, Banki to dig a well in his land for the purpose of cultivation and irrigation. As per the direction imparted in the work order, P.W.6 completed the work of digging well in the month of June, 2009 and thereafter, the petitioner came to see the digging work and took measurement of the work from various angles and on completion of measurement, the petitioner told P.W.6 that the amount of bill would be Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and after preparation of bill, the District Agriculture Officer would send the same to APICOL for subsidy. When P.W.6 asked the District Agriculture Officer about the subsidy, he told him to pay at least Rs.5,000/- towards subsidy and when P.W.6 expressed his inability to pay such an amount and after much request, the District Agriculture Officer insisted that unless P.W.6 paid Rs.4,000/-, his bill would not be prepared and no recommendation would be made for getting subsidy and further told to make contact with the petitioner. When P.W.6 met the petitioner, the latter protracted the matter from the month of June 2009 till the filing of written report i.e. on 16.11.2009 without preparing the bill of P.W.6. On 16.11.2009 when P.W.6 met the petitioner in the morning hours and requested him, the latter told that unless he (P.W.6) paid at least Rs.4,000/- as bribe, no bill would be prepared. Being hard pressed, P.W.6 lodged the F.I.R. (Ext.15/4) and the same was registered as Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.46 dated 16.11.2009 under section 7 of the 1988 Act and P.W.8 was directed to lay a trap, which led to the preparation of trap of the petitioner in the act of accepting the bribe so demanded. Accordingly, a preparation of trap was made in the office chamber of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack Division, Cuttack on 17.11.2009 at about 8.00 a.m. in presence of P.W.6 and other witnesses. After narration of the contents of the F.I.R. by P.W.6 to the witnesses, he handed over a sum of Rs.4,000/- consisting of eight numbers of currency notes of Rs.500/- which he had brought with him to be given to the petitioner. In the said trap party, P.W.4 was selected as the shadow/overhearing witness to accompany P.W.6 to the spot so as to witness the transaction of the bribe money and to hear the conversation between P.W.6 and the petitioner and to relay the signal by rubbing his forehead soon after the transaction was over. One co