The acceptance of bribes by public servants must be proven with corroborative evidence; however, in this case, the overwhelming witness testimonies justified the conviction despite the defense's claims of advance payments.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.03.1992 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.22 of 1986, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and Section 5 (1)(d) read with (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant was a record-keeper in the Kuanrmunda Tahasil Office and he demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant, Srimanta Narayan Das, to issue a certified copy of the order sheet, patta, etc., of the Encroachment Case No. 11 of 1978-79. Aggrieved by this, the complainant reported this to the vigilance authorities. The Vigilance staff arranged a trap to catch the accused red-handed, who asked the informant to pay the bribe money at 4:00P.M. on 26.10.1985 at the office of Voltam Engineering Office, which belong to one Ganeshram Modi, the master of the complainant. The complainant, along with the accompanying witness, went to the said office and collected the certified copies from the accused-appellant who then demanded the bribe of the said amount. While the accused counted the tainted money, after receiving the same, the accompanying witness gave a signal to the raiding party and was apprehended the accused red handed. The commission of the act of bribery was confirmed by the Vigilance officers form part of the raiding party. After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction from the District Magistrate to prosecute the accused/appellant, the charge-sheet was filed and the accused was put to trial.

3. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, examined as many as 8 witnesses, including the complainant as P.W.5., and exhibited 14 documents. P.W.7 who was the magisterial witness who took part in the preparation and trap, P.W.8 is the Vigilance Inspector who arranged the trap and one I.O. Also prosecution had exhibited 14 documents. On the other hand, the defence examined 3 witnesses in support of his defence. The appellant took the plea that for the purpose of purchasing iron rods and cement for construction work from the complainant at a reduced price, the amount of Rs.2,000/- was given in advance and the money was not meant for bribery.

4. The learned trial Court, after analyzing the entire evidence on record and relying heavily on the testimonies of P.Ws.5, 7 and 8, came to the conclusion that the accused-appellant is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and Section 5 (1)(d) read with (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly sentenced the appellant on each count. The learned trial Court sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under of I.P.C., and to undergo R.I. for two years and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- (rupees five hundred) and in default, to undergo R.I. for further three months for the offence under (1)(d) of the P.C. Act 1988.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, the present Appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant.

6. The present appeal has been pending since 1992. Since nobody appeared for the appellant despite repeated adjournments, this Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 appointed Ms. A. K. Dei, learned counsel to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae.

7. Heard Ms. A.K. Dei, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. M.S. Rizvi, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.

8. Ms. Dei