TAFAZUL RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal challenge is to the Order passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicting the appellant under Ss. 161,465 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) and under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence with a further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case may be stated in brief. The appellant was a public servant employed as the Stenographer of the Superintending Engineer,P.W.D. (R and B), Sambalpur. P. W. 12 Manoranjan Patnaik was a Contractor who had submitted an application in the office of the Superintending Engineer for registration as a 'D' class Contractor. On 3-8-1976 he met the appellant and made a specific request for registration because, the appellant was dealing with such matters. The appellant told that a sum of Rs. 50/- would have to be deposited under challan as application fee and accordingly P. W .12 gave a sum of Rs. 50/-to the appellant for the said purpose. He also gave another sum of Rs. 5/- to him for despatching the registration order in his Rourkela address. On 10-8-1976 P. W. 12 again came down to Sambalpur and met the appellant. The appellant told him that the registration certificate was ready for delivery and on payment of a bribe of Rs. 120/-to him the same would be delivered. On 11-8-1976 P. W. 12 reported the above incident to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Sambalpur and made a report (Ext. 17). The report was treated as F.I.R. and a trap was arranged. In accordance thereof P.W.12 met the appellant while he was coming from his residence to the office. The appellant demanded the bribe of Rs. 120/- whereupon P. W. 12 delivered to the appellant two 50 rupee G.C. notes and two 10 rupee G.C. notes which had earlier been treated with phenolphthalein powder. The appellant received the G.C. notes and kept them in his shirt pocket. At that time, on pre-arranged signal, the raiding party consisting of two independent persons Mangaturam Sarma (P.W. 5), Jagajivan Parmal (P.W. 7) and the Vigilance Officers led by the Investigating Officer (P. W. 13) appeared at the scene and demanded the currency notes which the appellant had just accepted from P. W. 12. The appellant produced the same and on production thereof the G.C. notes (M.Os. II to V) were seized by seizure list (Ext. 10). The hands and the shirt pocket of the appellant were washed with sodium carbonate solution and on account of the effect of the phenolphthalein powder the solution became pink. The appellant became nervous. In course of investigation, the specimen writings of the appellant were sent for examination by the Government Handwriting Expert in order to determine whether the name of P. W. 12 had been interpolated in the certificate of registration (Ext. 6). It was found that the appellant had interpolated the name of P. W. .12 in Ext. 6 although the Superintending Engineer had not passed any order for registering P. W. 12 as a 'D' class Contractor. After close of investigation, all material documents were placed. before the Superintending Engineer (P. W. 10) who by order (Ext. 16) sanctioned prosecution of the appellant. Thereafter charge-sheet was submitted in this case.

(3.) The appellant denied the charges brought against him and pleaded that despite his protests and against his will, P. W. 12 forcibly gave the G.C. notes and at that point of time the members of the raiding party appeared at the scene and demanded the G.C. notes. He stoutly denied that he had accepted the amount of Rs. 120/- as illegal gratification from P.W. 12. The learned Special Judge (Vigilance) believed the prosecution case, disbelieved the appellant's defence and found that the appellant had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 120/- from P.W. 12 and accepted the said amount from him as such. He had further committed forgery of official records. Accordingly he found that the appellant guilty of the charges framed, convicted him thereunder and imposed the sentence as already referred to above.