The prosecution must prove demand of bribe as essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money is insufficient without this proof.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. SAHOO, J.

The appellant Ghasiram Behera faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in T.R. Case No.314 of 2007 for offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act') on the accusation that on 14.11.2003 he being a public servant functioning as Dealing Clerk in the office of Sub-Treasury, Pallahara in Angul district obtained for his pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.1,100/- (rupees eleven hundred) from the informant Mahendra Kumar Sahoo (P.W.1) for processing the gratuity and arrear provisional pension bills of his widow mother and accepted the said amount for himself as gratification other than legal remuneration for the above purpose.

The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2017 found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the 1988 Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand), in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under section 7 of the 1988 Act with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. P.W.1 lodged the written report (Ext.1) before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack through the Inspector, Vigilance, Angul on 13.11.2003 stating therein that his father late Harihar Sahoo was serving as a teacher of Government Primary School and he expired on 29.03.2003. About two months prior to the lodging of F.I.R., the bill of unutilized leave of his deceased father in the name of his mother was submitted by B.D.O., Pallahara to Sub-Treasury office, Pallahara for passing the same and for payment. As the processing of such bill got delayed, on the request of P.W.1 for processing the bill file, the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- (rupees one thousand) for such purpose and out of the demanded amount, P.W.1 made payment of Rs.200/-(rupees two hundred) under compulsion and he was instructed by the appellant to pay the balance amount later on and thereafter gratuity and arrear provisional pension bills amounting to Rs.90,800/- was submitted by B.D.O., Pallahara on 01.11.2003 to the Sub-Treasury along with provisional pension bill of the mother of P.W.1. Though the provisional pension bill was passed by the treasury, the other two bills were returned to the Block office. When P.W.1 came to know about the same, he came to the treasury on 03.11.2003 and met the appellant, but the appellant on seeing P.W.1 got angry and charged him for non- payment of the balance amount of bribe and further warned him not to process any of the bills if his demand was not fulfilled. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 to process the bills and did not listen to P.W.1 in spite of his repeated request on 04.11.2003. P.W.1 again met the appellant in his office and requested him but the latter remained firm on his demand. Finding no other alternative and under compulsion and against his will, P.W.1 paid Rs.400/- to the appellant who took the same and asked P.W.1 to get the bills resubmitted from the Block office and further asked him to come up with the balance amount of Rs.1,100/- on 14.11.2003 and to pay him in his office. The appellant made it clear that u