S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED convicted under S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and S. 161, Penal Code preferred this appeal, During pendency of the appeal, he expired and his son has obtained permission under S. 394, Criminal P. C. to continue the same to get acquittal of his father recorded. ( 2 ) ACCUSED was Officer-in-charge of Malakangiri Police Station. Informant (P. W. 8) as Engineer who was a retired army personnel was carrying on business of work contract under State Irrigation Department at Malakangiri. Prior to it, he was carrying on business of purchase and sale of tin ore from the members of scheduled tribe of the area in partnership with two others. P. W. 3 was the Circle Inspector of Police of Malakangiri Police Circle. P. W. 1 is Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) stationed at Berhampur. P. W. 7 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) stationed at Jeypore within whose jurisdiction comes Malakangiri area. P. W. 4 was the Assistant Controller of Weights and Measures, Jeypore. P. W. 6 was the Senior Accountant of the District Police Office, Koraput. P. W. 3 is a co-villager of P. W. 8. D. W. 1 was a Writer Constable of Malakangiri Police Station under the accused. C. W. is a deed writer of Malakangiri. ( 3 ) ON 28-10-1983, while accused was Officer-in-charge of Malakangiri Police Station, he seized a truck bearing registration number ORK 6456 loaded with about 150 kgs. tin metal. At about 11 a. m. accused sent or P. W. 8 through one Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police when P. W. 8 was constructing his house. On getting information P. W. 8 proceeded to the Police Station to find the truck with metals and his previous partners in tin business Tirupati Patnaik and Apala Narasia. Accused informed P. W. 8 that the tin ore in the truck being of P. W. 8, he would arrest saying when P. W. 8 explained that he has left the business to the knowledge of accused since one year being involved in a criminal case in that respect and his previous partners are continuing the business, accused secretly discussed something with those two persons and thereafter scolding P. W. 8 in filthy language, arrested him. Accused stated that you had escaped earlier and that day he cannot escape since he is black-marketing cement and doing business in Tin ore without paying anything to accused. He should pay henceforth Rs. 1,000/- regularly every month for carrying on business within Malakangiri. He demanded Rs. 1,000/- for that tin or case failing which many other false cases would be instituted against him and he cannot remain within Malakangiri. Finding no way out P. W. 8 agreed to pay Rs. 1,000/- within 15 to 20 days after arranging the same. P. W. 8 who had been arrested was forwarded to Court on 29-10-1983 where he was released on bail. P. W. 8, thereafter, came to the police station where accused again reminded him and stated that he would be available from 15th Nov. , 1983 to 20th Nov. , 1983. P. W. 8 went to Berhampur and complained before Superintendent of Police (Vigilance ). On his advice he came back to Jeypore and lodged a written report (Ext. 12) on 16-11-1983. ( 4 ) ON receipt of the report, P. W. 7 requisitioned assistance of Tahasildar, Jeypore and P. W. 4. On their reaching, P. W. 7 proceeded to Malakangiri with party in two jeeps. They reached Satiguda Inspection Bungalow. P. W. 8 gave the amount of Rs. 1,000/- (ten 100 - rupees G. C. Notes ). Number of these currency notes were noted down by Tahsildar and P. W. 4 as per Exts. 4 and 5. P. W. 2 demonstrated preparation of Sodium Carbonate solution in presence o1 others which was colourless. He treated a portion of the solution with Phenolphthalein powder which turned pink rose. Both solutions were preserved. Thereafter, he treated the ten currency notes with that powder. They were handed over to P. W. 8 to be paid to the accused. P. W. 5 was asked to go with P. W. 8 to police station and hear the conversation between P. W. 8 and accused and to give signal by flashing a torch when accused received the currency notes from P. W. 8. P. W. 2 stayed back at Satiguda Inspection Bungalow. Others proceeded towards the police-station. They stayed back at a distance. P. Ws. 8 and 5 proceeded to Police Station. A constable was posted in between to relay the flash of torch. ( 5 ) WHEN P. Ws. P. W. 2 stayed back at Satiguda Inspection Bungalow. Others proceeded towards the police-station. They stayed back at a distance. P. Ws. 8 and 5 proceeded to Police Station. A constable was posted in between to relay the flash of torch. ( 5 ) WHEN P. Ws. 8 and 5 reached the Police Station, P. W. 5 remained outside and P. W. 8 went inside the office room of accused who was absent. Shortly thereafter, when accused reached, P. W. 8 followed him into his office room. On enquiry from accused about the money, P. W. 8 paid Rs. 1,000/- taken by him. Accused counted and kept the same inside a red diary (M. O. XI ). At that stage one Advocate Panigrahi came inside. Accused requested P. W. 8 and Panigrahi to wait out side. When both of them came out, P. W. 8 heard opening of the Almirah and shortly thereafter accused came out. ( 6 ) P. W. 8 told P. W. 5 that he had paid the money to accused and instructed to focus the torch. Accordingly, P. W. 5 focused the torch and raiding party arrived shortly thereafter. P. W. 7 disclosed identity to accused and introduced others to the accused. Then he challenged accused that he has received bribe of Rs. 1,000/- to help him in a criminal case. Accused was perplexed and not being able to say anything trembled. Subsequently he denied to have received any amount. At that time, P. W. 3 the Circle Inspector arrived at the spot from his office. P. W. 7 directed the accused to tip his fingers to the pot containing sodium carbonate solution accused was reluctant. When P. W. 3 persuaded him, with reluctance, he dipped his fingers into the solution which turned pink rose. Solution was put inside a bottle and was sealed which was kept by the Tahsildar. When P. W. 7 called upon accused to hand over the tainted currency notes received, without giving any reply accused proceeded towards office of Circle Inspector. Raiding party followed him. On search of the person of accused, P. W. 7 recovered Rs. 945. 60 paise from chest pocket of accused. However, they did not contain the tainted currency notes. This was seized by P. W. 7 under Ext. 14 when accused refused to take them back. Raiding party followed him. On search of the person of accused, P. W. 7 recovered Rs. 945. 60 paise from chest pocket of accused. However, they did not contain the tainted currency notes. This was seized by P. W. 7 under Ext. 14 when accused refused to take them back. Accused, raiding party and Circle Inspector went to office room of accused since P. W. 8 stated that the amount was kept inside M. O. XI. Diary was found was searched but nothing was found. Other laces were searched but the currency notes were not found. P. W. 7 asked accused to open the steel Almirah which was locked. Accused informed that the key was with P. W. 1 who was out on tour. At the time of search accused was going out of his room on some plea or other. Sub-divisional Police Officer reached at that time and requested accused to open the almirah but accused took the same plea. Search was continuing, P. W. 7 found a bunch of keys from the waste paper basket in the adjoining room of accused. That was the entrance room to the room of accused. Those keys were seized as per Ext. 7. Suspecting that one of the keys might be of the almirah. P. W. 7 requested accused to open the almirah but he refused. When P. W. 7 went to open, accused stood in front of the almirah and obstructed. P. W. 7 gave requisition to S. O. P. C. to facilitate opening of almirah as per Ext. 16. Sub-divisional Police Officer requested accused but he refused and left the place. P. W. 7 issued notice to accused to attend the search as per Ext. 17. Although accused was standing on the varandah, he did not accept the notice. P. W. 7 opened the almirah in presence of Sub-divisional Police Officer, Circle Inspector (P. W. 3), Tahasildar, P. W. 4 and others. Before that Tahsildar took personal search of P. W. 7 and nothing was found from his person. On opening of almirah and search, the incriminating notes were found from the second self of the almirah which were made over to Tahsildar who tallied the numbers of the notes with the numbers already noted down at Satiguda Inspection Bungalow. Before that Tahsildar took personal search of P. W. 7 and nothing was found from his person. On opening of almirah and search, the incriminating notes were found from the second self of the almirah which were made over to Tahsildar who tallied the numbers of the notes with the numbers already noted down at Satiguda Inspection Bungalow. ( 7 ) IT is true that there is no evidence except that of P. W. 8 about demand of Rs. 1,000/- by accused on 28-10-1983 and 29-10-1983. Normally, evidence of P. W. 8 uncorroborated by any other evidence would become doubtful. However, in case circumstances corroborate the statement of P. W. 8, there would be no reason to disbelieve him specially when P. W. 8 does not claim that his previous partners present at the police station and not examined, had heard it. Their non-examination would not be material. ( 8 ) P. W. 3 went to Berhampur to complain to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) as stated by him. This version has not been corroborated. However, accused accepted this and suggested to P. W. 1 in cross-examination that P. W. 8 and P. W. 5 went to Berhampur and returned to Jeypore in the jeep of P. W. 1. Therefore, I am inclined to accept statement of P. W. 8 that he made a grievance to Superintendent of Police. Non-examination of Superintendent of Police is not fatal to prosecution. ( 9 ) LODGING of First Information Report on 16-11-1983 and raiding party proceeding to Malakangiri has not been disputed. Background of the same is demand of Rs. 1,000/- by the accused. Arrangement of the trap is also well proved by the prosecution through P. Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Thus, the facts of the raiding party reaching Satiguda Inspection Bungalow has been well proved. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 took Rs. 1,000/- to pay to accused which fact is disclosed in the First Information Report. At Satiguda Inspection Bungalow the said amount consisting of ten 100 rupees currency notes was treated with phenolphthalein powder is also proved by the witnesses. Taking note of the numbers of the currency notes by Tahasildar and P. W. 4 is also proved by Exts. 4 and 5 and evidence of P. W. 4. At Satiguda Inspection Bungalow the said amount consisting of ten 100 rupees currency notes was treated with phenolphthalein powder is also proved by the witnesses. Taking note of the numbers of the currency notes by Tahasildar and P. W. 4 is also proved by Exts. 4 and 5 and evidence of P. W. 4. Apart from P. W. 8, P. W. 7 and other witnesses, P. W. 5 has stated that the amount was paid to P. W. 8 instructing him to pay the same to accused. This is well proved. Thus, the currency notes were in custody of P. W. 8 till P. W. 8 and P. W. 5 reached the Police Station. ( 11 ) ONE of the most important questions is whether accused received the amount since accused has taken the plea that he has not received any amount from P. W. 8. P. Ws. 8 and 5 went to Police-station with the amount. Accused was absent at that time. Both P. Ws. 8 and 5 stated that accused came after some time. P. W. 5 claims that finding accused absent, he went to intimate the fact to the raiding party and on his return P. W. 8 stated that he has already paid the amount to accused and he should give the signal. P. W. 5 accepted P. W. 8's statement and focused the torch. P. W. 8 stated that when he paid the amount being asked by accused there was no body. In such a position facts of payment by P. W. 8 to accused and receipt of the amount by accused are to be considered from circumstances only for corroboration to P. W. 8. ( 12 ) IF accused would have accepted the prosecution case of payment by P. W. 8 and explained why he received the amount the nature of consideration of attending circumstances would have been different. Accused did not accept the fact of payment of P. W. 8 and receipt by him. ( 13 ) ABSENCE of accused is claimed by him to be going out for collecting intelligence. This may be true. His coming back to police-station is, however, proved by P. Ws. 6 and 5. P. W. 8 stated that immediately after he paid the amount which accused kept in M. O. XI, K. C. Panigrahi, Advocate came into the office room. This may be true. His coming back to police-station is, however, proved by P. Ws. 6 and 5. P. W. 8 stated that immediately after he paid the amount which accused kept in M. O. XI, K. C. Panigrahi, Advocate came into the office room. It is true that in case K. C. Panigrahi would have been examined, he would have stated presence of P. W. 8 in the office room of the accused along with accused when he came in and accused requested him and P. W. 8 to remain outside. This fact has not been proved. However, the same would not disprove receipt of M. Os. I to X by accused since K. C. Panigrahi is not claimed to have been payment. If this would have been the only circumstance possibly, I would not have accepted uncorroborated statement of P. W. 8. Situation developed thereafter. ( 14 ) P. W. 8 stated P. W. 5 that he has paid the amount and P. W. 5 accepting the same gave signal. This is not challenged in cross-examination. Arrival of raiding party at the Police-station when accused was present is also not disputed. At that stage P. W. 7 accosted accused that he has received Rs. 1,000/- from P. W. 8. Accused denied the same in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. PW. 7 who accosted and P. Ws. 1, 4, 5 and 8 who were present at that place, corroborate this part of prosecution case. P. W. 1 stated in his examination that the I. O. challenged the accused saying as to whether he had accepted the bribe money of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant. This statement has not been tested by accused by cross-examination. P. W. 4, the Assistant Controller of Weights and Measures stated that P. W. 7 challenged the accused saying that he has received illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/- from complainant. In cross-examination, he clarified that at the first instance accused was told that he had accepted the bribe money. But the vigilance staff did not demand the bribe money at that stage. He stated that accused kept mum. He did not deny the allegation. P. W. 5 also stated that P. W. 7 challenged accused and accused denied to have received any amount from the complainant. But the vigilance staff did not demand the bribe money at that stage. He stated that accused kept mum. He did not deny the allegation. P. W. 5 also stated that P. W. 7 challenged accused and accused denied to have received any amount from the complainant. This witness, however, stated that two of the raiding party caught hold of the hand of accused by wrist. Challenge to accused by P. W. 7 has not been suggested to be incorrect. P. Ws. 7 and 8 also assert the fact of challenge. Therefore, this part of the prosecution story has been proved. ( 15 ) CONDUCT of the accused at that stage is material for drawing inference whether he had received the amount. Prosecution case is that when challenged accused became pale perplexed and trembled. Accused denied the same in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. P. Ws. 1, 4, 7 and 8 have marked the demeanour of accused at that stage and stated the same. P. W. 1 stated that at that time accused was found in a perplexed mood. When this witness was asked in cross-examination as to what he meant to be perplexed, he explained that the accused was sweating as noticed from his face, and so he said that the accused was perplexed. He added that accused was furious and that mood continued from the very moment he was challenged about the receipt of bribe money. P. W. 4 stated that at that time accused became dumb founded and perplexed. In cross-examination he stated that accused kept mum. He did not deny the allegations but he clenched his fists. Thereafter also he did not deny the allegation. Explaining why he stated that accused was perplexed, he stated that because the accused clenched his fist, he stated that he became perplexed. Again he stated that from the appearance of the accused he could know that he was perplexed. P. W. 5, stated that accused denied to have received any amount. P. W. 7 stated that being challenged accused became perplexed. He was not in a position to say anything and trembled and subsequently he denied to have received the money. From the evidence of these witnesses, I am inclined to accept the prosecution story that accused became perplexed when challenged and thereafter regained strength to deny the fact of receipt. P. W. 7 stated that being challenged accused became perplexed. He was not in a position to say anything and trembled and subsequently he denied to have received the money. From the evidence of these witnesses, I am inclined to accept the prosecution story that accused became perplexed when challenged and thereafter regained strength to deny the fact of receipt. By itself the conduct of accused may not lead to inference that he received the amount offered by P. W. 8. ( 16 ) NEXT stage is the hand wash of accused. While not disputing in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. accused explained that hand of witness dipped into the solution with hand of accused. He does not specifically state whose hand with his hand mixed with water. If the story of another hand dipping into the solution is not accepted, only inference would be that hand of accused only was dipped and the solution turned pink which is the reaction of phenolphthalein powder in sodium carbonate solution. P. W. 5 stated that at the time of giving identification, the members of raiding party shook hands with accused. This has not been stated by the accused in his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. , although he gave a complete picture of his defence in answer to the penultimate question. His story is that the raiding party caught hold of his hands and dipped his fingers in the water along with their fingers. Fact that remains is that the sodium carbonate solution changed its colour. If the explanation given by accused is found not to be correct, inference would be that hand of accused came in contact with phenolphthalein powder. How it came in contact is well within knowledge of accused. If he is not able to explain the same prosecution case that G. C. notes treated with the said powder was received by accused would stand corroborated. ( 17 ) DIPPING of fingers of accused in sodium carbonate solution is not in dispute. Suggestion was given to P. W. 1 that B. K. Das, Inspector caught hold of one hand of accused and Inspector Biswal caught hold of another hand. They forcibly dipped finger of accused in solution and in that process they dipped their finger in the solution. P. W. 1 denied the suggestion. Suggestion was given to P. W. 1 that B. K. Das, Inspector caught hold of one hand of accused and Inspector Biswal caught hold of another hand. They forcibly dipped finger of accused in solution and in that process they dipped their finger in the solution. P. W. 1 denied the suggestion. P. W. 3, the Circle Inspector, who had arrived by that time stated in examination-in-chief that Inspector Biswal had caught hold of accused by his right hand below the elbow. Accused was asked to dip his finger in the solution. When accused dipped his fingers the solution changed into pink rose colour. He was cross-examined that he did not state the same before Investigating Officer which he denied. P. W. 4 stated in examination-in-chief that accused first became reluctant and then gave his hand wash when asked. In cross-examination he was suggested that hand wash of the accused was taken forcibly by vigilance staff by holding his fingers and dipping forcibly and in that process fingers of the vigilance staff also got dipped in the solution. This was denied by him. P. W. 5 stated that when accused declined to dip his fingers on being asked by P. W. 7 Biswal Babu and another forcibly caught hold of the right hand of the accused by his wrist and dipped into the solution which became pink/rose. This was challenged in cross-examination by prosecution under S. 154 of the Evidence Act. To suggestion of accused in cross-examination, P. W. 5 denied that any member of the Vigilance staff shook hand with accused. He further stated in cross-examination that he has not noticed if fingers of those two persons who had caught hold of the accused also touched the solution when they were forcibly dipping the hand of accused into the solution. P. W. 7 stated that accused was very reluctant to dip his finger into the solution when he directed and finally with reluctance he dipped his fingers. He was suggested in cross-examination that when accused became reluctant, he forcibly caught hold of his hand and got his hand dipped into the solution and in that process their hands were also dipped into the solution. P. W. 7 denied the same. P. W. 8 stated that accused was reluctant and at the request of P. W. 3 he gave his hand wash. P. W. 7 denied the same. P. W. 8 stated that accused was reluctant and at the request of P. W. 3 he gave his hand wash. Perusal of evidence in this respect and considering the different stand taken by accused, I am inclined to hold that no finger other than that of accused dipped into the solution to change its colour to pink/rose. This is a strong circumstance corroborating. P. W. 8 that accused received M. Os. 1 to X from P. W. 8. ( 18 ) ACCUSED is the normal custodian of the keys of the almirah. He stated that he had given it to D. W. 1 who in his evidence stated that he handed over the key to P. W. 7 at instance of P. W. 3. However, no such sugestion was given to P. W. 3 or any other witness in this respect. In his statement under S. 313, Cr. P. C. specific explanation of accused is that he handed over the key to D. W. 1. But evidence of all the P. Ws. present including the Circle Inspector is that bunch of keys was recovered from the waste paper basket in the room adjacent to office room of accused. D. W. 1 does not state that the Keys were put by him in the basket. Waste paper basket is not the usual place for the keys of an almirah with cash to be kept. D. W. 1 is a liar in stating that he handed over the key to P. W. 7. I am inclined to hold that keys were recovered from the waste paper basket and discovery of keys which are to be normally in -custody of accused from an abnormal place with false plea of accused becomes a corroborative circumstance to the statement of P. W. 8 that he paid the money to accused and heard the sound of opening of almirah. ( 19 ) CURRENCY notes M. Os. I to X were recovered from the almirah. Accused resisted opening of almirah. He refused to open the almirah himself. Number of currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in Exts. 4 and 5. These are all corroboration to statement of P. W. 8 that he paid the amount and accused received the same. I to X were recovered from the almirah. Accused resisted opening of almirah. He refused to open the almirah himself. Number of currency notes tallied with the numbers noted in Exts. 4 and 5. These are all corroboration to statement of P. W. 8 that he paid the amount and accused received the same. Acceptance of this payment by accused makes it clear that accused demanded earlier to help P. W. 8 in his prosecution in tin metal case which amounts to receipt of pecuniary advantage as envisaged under S. 5 (1) (d) of the Act. Thus, accused has rightly been found to be guilty. ( 20 ) I need not consider whether accused is guilty under S. 161, IPC. since he is no more available to serve the sentence. ( 21 ) IN result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.