D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.1.1995 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in RC 12(A) 91R whereby the learned trial Court had acquitted the respondent from the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(2.) THE gist of the charge is that in his capacity as a public servant employed in the Town Administration Department. Estate Section of the Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro. the accused/respondent had. on 11.6.1991, demanded and received rupees fifty as illegal gratification from the complainant. A Kumar, an employee of the Bokaro Steel Plant, and has thereby obtained for himself pecuniary benefit by illegal means. One day earlier i.e. on 10.6.1991. the complainant had lodged a complaint before the vigilance officer apprising him of the demand made by the accused for illegal gratification for supplying him two ceiling fans from the stores department. The complainant was asked to visit the office of the Vigilance Officer with a sum of rupees fifty. On being informed by the Vigilance Officer, the CBI team came to the office of Bokaro Vigilance Officer. Two independent witnesses were called for from the office of the vigilance officer before whom a pre -trap arrangement was chalked out. Currency notes of rupees fifty were smeared with phenothelene and handed over to the complainant directing him to give the tainted currency note(s) to the accused only on demand. Witness Raghu Nath Tiwary (PW 2) was asked to accompany the complainant in disguise. The trap team arrived at the office of the accused at 12.15 p.m. on 11.6.1991. While others were at strategic distance, the complainant accompanied by R.N. Tiwary, approached the accused and introduced R.N. Tiwary as his relative. The complainant requested the accused for replacement of the old fans with new fans upon which the accused inquired as to whether the complainant had brought rupees fifty. The accused told the complainant to hand over the money to Lalji Mahato (PW 5) who was present in the same room, but on refusal by Lalji Mahto to receive the money, the accused himself received the currency notes from the complainant, counted it with his hands and thereafter kept the currency notes beneath the stock register lying on the table. The old fans brought by the complainant for replacement were received and kept by Lalji Mahato and he issued a receiving slip to the complainant. On signal given by Raghunath Tiwary, the Vigilance Inspector J. Choudhury (PW 3) along with the raiding party entered the room of the accused and after disclosing their identity, they caught him. The fingers of the left and right hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution prepared in water separately. The solution tuned pink. The solution was poured in two separate glasses, sealed and signed by the witnesses. The tainted currency notes were recovered from beneath the register kept on the table of the accused and after recovery of the currency notes, they were sealed and signed by the Vigilance Inspector and the witnesses. The stock registers were also seized. Thereafter, the accused was taken to the office of the vigilance officer where a detailed recovery memo was prepared, signed by the officer making seizure and also by the witnesses and the accused and a copy thereof was handed over to the accused.
(3.) THE trial Court considered the evidence on record and observed that there were several inconsistencies in the evidences of witnesses on the point of demand by the accused for illegal gratification and also on the point of recovery of the tainted currency notes from his possession. The points on the basis of which the trial Court recorded its inference in favour of the accused are: (i) that the written report claimed to have been submitted by the complainant to the vigilance officer was not adduced in evidence to prove the contents thereof: (ii) no independent witness was examined in support of the complainant's claim that the accused had demanded illegal gratification/ money from him firstly on 8.6.1991 and thereafter on 11.6.1991. - - - - (iii) that there could be no occasion for the accused to demand illegal gratification for replacement of new fans since there was no such provision for replacement of old fans in place of new ones. (iv) that the testimony of the witnesses regarding recovery of the currency notes from the complainant is also inconsistent and not supported by Lalji Mahto PW 5: (v) that the witnesses constituted the trap party and therefore they cannot be held to be independent witnesses and therefore their testimony cannot be accepted as reliable. ;