Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money cannot establish charges without evidence of demand.

Judgment :

S. K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The petitioner, in this application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C, seeks to challenge the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by Learned Special Judge Vigilance Dhenkanal in T.R. Case no. 72 of 2017 arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 28 of 2016 wherein the learned trial court after taking cognizance of the case has been pleased to frame charge and directed the petitioner to be tried with two charges head for commission of offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w s.7 & s.13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (hereinafter referred as “PC Act”) on the basis of the materials and documents submitted by the prosecution.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as narrated in the charge sheet, is that on 19.05.2016 a written complaint was made before S.P Vigilance Cuttack by complainant named Nagen Binayak wherein it was alleged that one constable Nilamani Pradhan of Sarang PS demanded Rs.11,000/- from the complainant in order to facilitate protection from arrest him until his grant of Anticipatory Bail. The charge sheet further alleges that the request was also made for relaxation of charges while filing the charge-sheet with regard to the F.I.R registered against him on 14.05.2016. it was also alleged that the demanded amount of Rs 11,000/- out of which Rs.10,000/- is for IIC Parjang Mr. Bamadev Sankhuala/present Petitioner and Rs 1000/- is for the Constable Nilamani Pradhan, who is one of the co-accused in the T.R 72/2017. It is alleged that finding no other option, the complainant readily agreed to the demand of Nilamani Pradhan. Furthermore, after the said complaint of the complainant a trap team was constituted and the team along with the official witnesses proceeded towards Parjang Police Station in compliance with the direction of S.P. Vigilance, C.D, Cuttack on 20.05.2016. As per the plan, the Vigilance Trap Party reached Parjang Town and their vehicle was parked at about 2 K.M. away from the Parjang Police Station. While proceeding towards Parjang, Nilamani Pradhan contacted the complainant over phone and enquired about his arrival to the Police Station. The complainant said that he would proceed towards Parjang after taking his breakfast and thereafter he was asked by Nilamani Pradhan to come towards Mundeilo village. Accordingly, the Complainant along with overhearing witnesses proceeded towards Mundeilo village. When they met one another Nilamani Pradhan returned to Parjang town along with the complainant and overhearing witnesses. In between Mundeilo and Parjang town the complainant requested to Nilamani Pradhan stating that a case has been registered against him. In reply to the same, Nilamani Pradhan asked him as to whether he had brought the demanded amount or not? The complainant replied in affirmative and as per the demand, he handed over the tainted money Rs 11,000/ to Nilamani Pradhan after taking out from the four-fold paper wherein the said cash was kept as per the plan.

3. The said Nilamani Pradhan kept the tainted money Rs 11,000/ inside the front right-side pocket of his pant. It is alleged that after the money was delivered to Nilamani Pradhan, he then proceeded towards Parjang Police Station to hand over Rs 10,000/ to the petitioner. Nilamani Pradhan parked his motorcycle in front of the Parjang Police Station and walked towards the residential Govt. Quarter of the petitioner and stayed there for half an hour and once again returned to Police Station. On receiving the pre-arranged signal from the Overhearing witness Sri Prakash Chandra Dehury, the Trap Party members immediately rushed to the spot and f