Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 489 (ORI)

Pradipta Kumar Jena v. State of Orissa

2016-07-04

D.DASH

body2016
JUDGMENT : The appellant in this appeal assails the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore on 23.09.2008 in T.R. Case No.483 of 2007 corresponding to T.R. Case No.12 of 1989 on the file of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar arising out of Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.6/88, convicting him for commission of offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (hereafter called in short as 'the Act') read with Section 161 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6(six) months for the offence under Sec. 161 of I.P.C. and R.I. for a period of 1(one) year followed by payment of fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One hundred) and in default to undergo further R.I. for one month for the offence under sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Act with the stipulation that the substantive sentence would be running concurrently. 2. Prosecution case is as follows:- On 30.03.1988 the appellant was working as the Welfare Extension Officer at Sadar Block, Balasore. That the complainant P.W.8 is a member of Scheduled Caste. He had the intention to sell a piece of his land to one Narahari Sahu and his brothers in order to meet the expenses for the marriage of his sister. But being a member of scheduled caste in view of restriction for transfer of any immovable property as provided in the O.L.R. Act and as it was only possible with prior permission, he made an application seeking said permission. It is stated that for the purpose, he approached the appellant who was then the Welfare Extension Officer of Sadar Block, Balasore for obtaining a caste certificate. The allegation next runs that the appellant for extending the said help demanded bribe of Rs.100/-. Finally it was settled at Rs.50/- to which the complainant yielded against his will. So he lodged the F.I.R., Ext.9 with the D.S.P., Vigilance, Balasore which necessitated the registration of the case against the appellant and thereafter trap was decided to be laid after observing all other formalities. It is stated that the complainant and over-hearing witnesses went in a rickshaw to the Block Office. Other members of the raiding party including the Magistrate and another Govt. Official went to the office and remained at such position within the visible range. It is stated that the complainant and over-hearing witnesses went in a rickshaw to the Block Office. Other members of the raiding party including the Magistrate and another Govt. Official went to the office and remained at such position within the visible range. The appellant was then absent in the office and a little while thereafter he arrived. It is alleged that no sooner did the appellant see the complainant, he asked him as to if he had brought money. On his asking, the complainant bringing out the tainted currency notes from his left side chest pocket from inside the white paper, handed those notes to the appellant who then having accepted the same, kept those notes being earlier smeared with phenolphthalein powder inside the right side back pocket of his trouser. At this time, the witnesses as per earlier arrangement receiving the signal arrived, when they found that the appellant was coming out side followed by the complainant. It was then pointed out by the complainant to the Investigating Officer and the members of the raiding party. They took the appellant inside his room and told him to have received the bribe which he initially denied. The appellant was then asked to give his hand-wash in sodium carbonate solution, which although was not immediately agreed to, yet when finally taken, the colour became pink. It is further alleged that during the period, the appellant brought out the currency notes from his pocket and threw those away. The hand-wash so collect was then kept in a clean, dry and empty bottles which were sealed and signed in presence of the witnesses. The currency notes thrown were collected and compared by the Magistrate with the copy of the preparation report written and kept by him and the numbers tallied. The hand wash of the Magistrate and witnesses were also taken and that also changed to pink colour and accordingly preserved in clean and dry bottles, duly sealed and signed. The dresses of the appellant were taken. When the right side back pocket of his trouser was washed with sodium carbonate solution, the colour also changed to pink which was preserved. The detection report was made. Seizure of tainted notes, clean glass bottles, bottles with hand wash & other wash, solutions etc. were also seized and sent for chemical examination. The dresses of the appellant were taken. When the right side back pocket of his trouser was washed with sodium carbonate solution, the colour also changed to pink which was preserved. The detection report was made. Seizure of tainted notes, clean glass bottles, bottles with hand wash & other wash, solutions etc. were also seized and sent for chemical examination. The case record of the O.L.R. Case No.68/88 was seized from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Balasore. The report from the Chemical Examiner, S.F.S.L., Rasulgarh being received, the Investigating Officer placed the relevant papers including his consolidated report before the Sanctioning Authority. Necessary sanction being accorded, charge sheet was placed against the appellant for facing the trial for the offences as stated above. 3. The appellant during trial admitted that a person had come to him on 28.3.88 with a request to give a caste certificate but then he told him to approach the Tahasildar or Revenue Officer as the case may be for the purpose of grant of caste certificate, they being the competent authority. It is also his case that on 30.3.88 that person again came and renewed his request as made before and then he forcibly kept the currency notes in the back pocket of his trouser which were immediately thrown by him and under that situation he was compelled to leave the room. It is stated that only near the gate of the Block Office, he was caught hold of and brought back. It is also his case that by then he had no information from any quarter even as regards any enquiry if required to be made by him in relation to the issue of the cast certificate if any. 4. The trial court in view of such case and counter case, as it appears, has rightly formulated the following points for determination:- (i) Whether the appellant is a public servant being the welfare Extension Officer of Sadar Block, Balasore demanded and accepted the cash of Rs.50/- as gratification other than the remuneration from P.W.8 as a motive or reward for doing an official act for submitting an enquiry report regarding issuance of caste certificate; and (ii) Whether the appellant being a public servant by illegal means or official abusing his position as such obtaining for himself the pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.50/-from P.W.8. 5. 5. Going to answer the aforesaid points as is seen, the trial court has taken up the exercise of examination of evidence and their evaluation in searching the answers to the above points. Finally, the answers having been recorded in favour of the prosecution, the appellant has been convicted and visited with the sentence as aforesaid. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.P. Das at the outset submits that the evidence on record are not at all sufficient to record a finding in favour of the prosecution in so far as the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe is concerned. For the purpose, he has placed the evidence of P.W.8 the complainant who has not spoken in favour of those facts and whose evidence from the very beginning even with regard to the purpose is wholly unsatisfactory absolutely showing no occasion for the same. It is strenuously argued that leaving aside the fact that P.W. 8 has not supported the prosecution which itself is not enough to discard the prosecution case, yet here the evidence as stand do not go to establish all such circumstances to hold that the appellant received the gratification from P.W. 8 and therefore the recovery of money from the appellant even though accepted, the same without being coupled with such other circumstances, the presumption as engrafted in section 4(1) of the Act which corresponds to section 20 of the Act of 1988 cannot be drawn. He further contends that the evidence of D.W.1 establishes the case of the defence since he has stated that the person who was approaching the appellant for issuance of a caste certificate kept something in the pocket of the appellant which he immediately threw. So it is contended that when the presence of D.W.1 at the spot at the relevant time is not disputed as he is a signatory to the detection report and his evidence as above has not been shaken nor can be doubted as there surfaces no such evidence on that score, it is not understood as to how the trial Court has ignored his evidence from being given any weightage when the law is not that the evidence adduced by the defence are to be approached from the beginning carrying the suspicion in mind. It is also contended that when the witness deposed after 20 years of the incident, it was but natural to have the minor variations and rather had it not been so, his evidence would have otherwise been held to be tainted with interestedness. Therefore, with such minor variations in the factual backdrop, the trial Court ought not to have discarded his evidence. He lastly contends that viewing the evidence on record from every angle, the prosecution in the case cannot be said to have proved its case on the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Reiterating that in the obtaining factual matrix, the presumption as provided under the Act would not be attracted, he contends that this appellant has thus with above evidence been unnecessarily put to harassment for all these period from the year 1988 and undergo the sufferings for being out of service for about 8 years by now. Thus he finally urges that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence as passed by the trial court are liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance, Mr. S.K. Das submits all in favour of the findings recorded by the trial court. According to him, the appreciation of evidence on record as made by the trial court under no circumstance can be said to be faulty and on the basis of evidence proving the recovery of money and other circumstances when the presumption available under the law gets drawn which the appellant has failed to rebut, the trial court did commit no mistake in returning a finding of guilt against the appellant for the offences for which he stood charged. He therefore urges for dismissal of the appeal. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1206 and Indra Vijay Alok vs. State of M.P., AIR 2015 SC 3681 . 8. He therefore urges for dismissal of the appeal. He has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1206 and Indra Vijay Alok vs. State of M.P., AIR 2015 SC 3681 . 8. In the instant case, now it is to be seen as to whether the factum of demand and acceptance have been proved beyond reasonable doubt through reliable evidence or whether the recovery of the money coupled with other circumstances leads to the conclusion that the appellant received gratification from the person concerned, thereby raising the presumption as mandated under section 4(1) of the Act as it was then which corresponds to section 20 of the Act of 1988 calling upon the appellant to rebut it either through cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence and that if it has been so done. 9. In view of the rival contentions as raised before proceeding further to dwell upon the same it is felt the need at this place to note few decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court. 10. In case of Sita Ram vs. State of Rajasthan; AIR 1975 SC 1432 , the complainant had turned hostile in the Court of Special Judge. However, the Trial Judge convicted the accused who was tried along with another accused. The High Court on appreciation of the evidence acquitted that other accused but maintained the conviction against the appellant. The Apex Court opined that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Act could not be drawn in the facts of the case. However, there the question, whether the rest of the evidence was sufficient to establish that the accused had obtained the money from the complainant was not considered. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hazari Lal vrs. State (Delhi Admn.); AIR 1980 SC 873 distinguished the pronouncement in Sita Ram (supra) by stating thus:- “... The question whether the rest of the evidence was sufficient to establish that the accused had obtained the money from the complainant was not considered. All that was taken as established was the recovery of certain money from the person of the accused and it was held that mere recovery of money was not enough to entitle the drawing of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. All that was taken as established was the recovery of certain money from the person of the accused and it was held that mere recovery of money was not enough to entitle the drawing of the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court did not consider the further question whether recovery of the money along with other circumstances could establish that the accused had obtained gratification from any person. In the present case we have found that the circumstances established by the prosecution entitled the court to hold that the accused received the gratification from P.W.3. In Suraj Mal v. State (delhi Admn.), also it was said mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid was not sufficient when the substantive evidence in the case was not reliable to prove payment of bribe or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money. There can be no quarrel with that proposition but where the recovery of the money coupled with other circumstances leads to the conclusion that the accused received gratification from some person the court would certainly be entitled to draw the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In our view both the decisions are of no avail to the appellant and as already observed by us conclusions of fact must be drawn on the facts of each case and not on the facts of other cases.” 11. In case of M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.; AIR 2001 SC 318 , allegations against the accused-appellant were that one Satya Prasad, PW1 therein was to get some amount from Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation for transporting milk to or from the milk chilling centre at Luxettipet (Adilabad District). He had approached the appellant for taking steps to enable him to get money disbursed. The appellant demanded Rs.5000/-for sending the recommendation in favour of payment of the amount due to P.W.1. As the appellant persisted with his demand PW1 yielded to the same. But before handing over the money to him he lodged a complaint with DSP of Anti-Corruption Bureau. On the basis of the said complaint all arrangements were made for a trap to catch the corrupt public servant red-handed. Thereafter the Court adverted how the trap had taken place. As the appellant persisted with his demand PW1 yielded to the same. But before handing over the money to him he lodged a complaint with DSP of Anti-Corruption Bureau. On the basis of the said complaint all arrangements were made for a trap to catch the corrupt public servant red-handed. Thereafter the Court adverted how the trap had taken place. The court took note of the fact that PW1 and PW2 made a volteface in the Trial Court and denied having paid any bribery to the appellant and also denied that the appellant demanded the bribe amount. The stand of the accused before the Trial Court under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was that one Dr. Krishna Rao bore grudge and had orchestrated a false trap against him by employing PW 1 and PW 2. Be it stated, in his deposition PW 1 had stated that he had acted on the behest of one Dr.Krishna Rao. It was further the stand of the accused-appellant that the tainted currency notes were forcibly stuffed into his pocket. The Trial Court and the High Court had disbelieved the defence evidence and found that PW 1 and PW 2 were won over by the appellant and that is why they turned hostile against their own version recorded by the investigating officer and subsequently by a Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The Special Judge ordered the witnesses to be prosecuted for perjury and the said course suggested by the trial-Judge found approval of the High Court also. While dealing with the controversy this Court took note of the fact that the High Court had observed that though there was no direct evidence to show that the accused had demanded and accepted the money, yet the rest of the evidence and the circumstances were sufficient to establish that the accused had accepted the amount and that gave rise to a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that he accepted the same as illegal gratification, particularly so, when the defence theory put forth was not accepted. It was contended before this Court that presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only when the prosecution succeeded in establishing with direct evidence that the delinquent public servant had accepted or obtained gratification. It was contended before this Court that presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only when the prosecution succeeded in establishing with direct evidence that the delinquent public servant had accepted or obtained gratification. It was further urged that it was not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it acceptance of gratification and it was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to further prove that what was paid amounted to gratification. In support of the said contention reliance was placed on Sita Ram ( AIR 1975 SC 1432 ) (supra) and Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.). Their Lordships referred to Section 20(1) of the Act of 1988; the pronouncements in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co. Ltd. and Suresh Budharmal Kalani v. State of Maharashtra and adverting to the facts came to hold as follows:- “From those proved facts, the court can legitimately draw a presumption that the appellant received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition. Of course, the said presumption is not an inviolable one, as the appellant could rebut it either through cross-examination of the witnesses cited against him or by adducing reliable evidence. But if the appellant fails to disprove the presumption the same would stick and then it can be held by the court that the prosecution has proved that the appellant received the said amount.” Referring to the observations in Hazari Lal ( AIR 1980 SC 873 ) (supra), it has been opined that:- “The aforesaid observation is in consonance with the line of approach which we have adopted now. We may say with great respect to the learned Judges of the two Judge Bench that the legal principle on this aspect has been correctly propounded therein.” 12. The authority in case of B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P.; AIR 2014 SC (suppl) 1837, may next be placed. Here the complainant did not support the prosecution version and had stated in his deposition that the amount that was paid by him to the accused was with a request that it may be deposited in the bank as fee for renewal of his licence for the fair price shop. Here the complainant did not support the prosecution version and had stated in his deposition that the amount that was paid by him to the accused was with a request that it may be deposited in the bank as fee for renewal of his licence for the fair price shop. The court referred to Section 7 of the Act and observed as follows:- “Insofar as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position of law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position has been succinctly laid down in several judgments of this Court. By way of illustration, reference may be made to the decision in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. AIR 2011 SC 608 and C.M. Girish Babu v. C.B.I.; AIR 2009 SC 2022 . Having observed as above, the court proceeded to state as under:- “In the present case, the complainant did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. The prosecution has not examined any other witnesses, present at the time when the money was allegedly handed over to the accused by the complainant, to prove that the same was pursuant to any demand made by the accused. When the complainant himself has disowned what he had stated in the initial complaint (Ext.P-11) before LW-9, and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ext.P-11 cannot be relied upon to come to the conclusion that the above material furnishes proof of the demand allegedly made by the accused. We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the Ld. Trial court as well as the High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact, such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section7. The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact, such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing of pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. 13. The said principle has been followed in M.R. Purushottam v. State of Karnataka giving a careful reading to the aforesaid decisions, it is found that the court disbelieved the story of the prosecution as no other evidence was brought on record. In N. Narsinga Rao case (supra) the accused was charged for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) & (2) of the Act of 1988. The court, as already stated, had referred to section 20(1) of the said Act and opined that from the proven facts the court can legitimately draw a presumption that the delinquent officer had received and accepted money. Therefore, it is clear that the authorities in B. Jayaraj (supra) and M.R. Purushottam (supra) do not lay down as a proposition of law that when the complainant turns hostile and does not support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution cannot prove its case otherwise and the court cannot legitimately draw the legal presumption as available in the statute. 14. In the cited case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2015 SC 1206 ; Their Lordships referring to all the above decisions and discussing the evidence as placed in those cases as also the evidence of the case under consideration first of all have concluded that the whole case of prosecution cannot collapse merely because the complainant having turned hostile resiles from his version and supports the accused in directly. The facts and circumstances emanating from evidence on record in the cited case being found to be worthy of acceptance, Their Lordships have held that from all those legitimately a presumption stands drawn that the accused had received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition. The facts and circumstances emanating from evidence on record in the cited case being found to be worthy of acceptance, Their Lordships have held that from all those legitimately a presumption stands drawn that the accused had received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition. Thus the factum of presumption and testimony of those accompanying witnesses have been taken together to hold the prosecution case as laid to have been proved on the factum of demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount when in that case the accused had offered no explanation as regards recovery except baldly stating during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated and the presumption standing in no way thus been rebutted. 15. In the next cited case of Indra Vijay Alok vs. State of M.P., AIR 2015 SC 3681 , Their Lordships upon discussion of evidence held the prosecution to have established beyond reasonable doubt on all the required aspects of the case as also with the presumption being otherwise drawn. 16. Keeping in mind the above settled principles, let me now advert to the case in hand and proceed to analyse the evidence on record to examine the sustainability of the answer to the point for determination as given by the trial court in fashioning the guilt upon the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant was working as the Welfare Extension Officer in Balasore Sadar Block at the relevant time. It is the prosecution case that the complainant had gone and met the appellant for the purpose of providing necessary help for obtaining a caste certificate. However, it is stated in the very F.I.R. Ext 9 that the complainant being a member of scheduled caste had wanted to sell a piece of land to one Narahari Sahu and his brothers for meeting the expenses for the marriage of his sister and for the purpose an application had been filed for grant of permission. It is further stated that the application having been filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, for an enquiry it was sent to the local R.I.. Having collected the report of enquiry from that R.I., on 28.03.88, it is said that the complainant on 29.03.88 had gone to meet this appellant for obtaining a caste certificate. It is further stated that the application having been filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, for an enquiry it was sent to the local R.I.. Having collected the report of enquiry from that R.I., on 28.03.88, it is said that the complainant on 29.03.88 had gone to meet this appellant for obtaining a caste certificate. First of all, it is not made clear as to why there was the occasion for advancing a prayer for grant of a caste certificate before this appellant who was in no way competent having any authority in that behalf and secondly, when the matter was pending for grant of permission for sale and it had been sent for an enquiry not to the appellant but to the local R.I. where was the reason to discuss with him about the grant of caste certification. Moreover, there appears no need for production of caste certificate either of the proposed vendor or vendee since the Authority competent for granting the permission had already assumed the jurisdiction in the matter of permission which is only sought for when the person being a member of scheduled caste or tribe desires to transfer the immovable property. It is only when the proposed vendor makes an application asserting himself to be a member of scheduled caste or tribe as the case may be which is seen from the land documents the permission case is registered for its disposal in accordance with law. Thus, the very reason assigned by the complainant in the F.I.R. Ext.9 as to have led him to meet the appellant does not stand to reason and falls flat. So is not at all acceptable that on 29.3.88 he had the reason to approach the appellant to bring his caste certificate. It is also not stated that the complainant having earlier applied for grant of a caste certificate, it was awaiting to be issued or was finally to be handed over by the appellant being connected in the process in some way or other. It is also not stated that the complainant having earlier applied for grant of a caste certificate, it was awaiting to be issued or was finally to be handed over by the appellant being connected in the process in some way or other. So in this connection of making prayer for permission for sale of land, the approach of the complainant to the appellant for grant of a caste certificate who has no authority to do so and which has no purpose to serve so far as the main objective of permission in selling the land for meeting urgent expenditure is concerned, rather goes to create doubt in the mind from the very beginning. Now, let us glance at the relevant case record proved in the case marked as Ext. 5. It reveals therefrom that the application was filed by the P.W.8 and three others who are his brothers seeking permission for sale of land. It having been presented on 15.2.88, the first order has been passed on 22.2.88. The order sheet shows that Welfare Extension Officer, Balasore Block was forwarded with the copy of the application as also the Revenue Inspector for enquiry and report. The next date being fixed to 30.3.88, the service return inviting objection as also the reports being not received by then, the case got posted to 4.5.88 awaiting those service return and the reports. The trap has been laid on 30.3.88 basing on the FIR lodged on 29.3.88 after the demand of illegal gratification said to have been made by the appellant on 28.3.88. This gives rise to suspicion in mind that even if it is accepted for a moment that this appellant was asked to report and he was withholding the same with an intent to demand the illegal gratification and hoping for the payment of the same how could it be that very date fixed for the purpose having not crossed and even without ascertaining as regards non-receipt of report, P.Ws. 7 and 8 would be going to approach the appellant when fact stands that the report is to be directly sent to the concerned authority and not to be handed over to the applicant. This has not been removed by proving any document that the appellant has in fact received that copy of the application before 28.3.88. The time gap also being very short, no such inference can even be drawn. This has not been removed by proving any document that the appellant has in fact received that copy of the application before 28.3.88. The time gap also being very short, no such inference can even be drawn. Next doubt is cast by going through a petition marked as Ext. 6 said to have been filed before the authority by P.W. 8. Although it has been stated there that as the Welfare Officer is demanding gratification, he is not submitting the report yet nothing has been stated therein that by then the trap had already been laid. On that day, the authority has not even been informed about the incident. When the Revenue Officer had been asked by the authority to submit the report the FIR narration is that it had been so received by P.W.8 on 28.3.88. On the other hand, the report of the R.I. is very much available in the case record and that when shows to have been signed on 15.3.88, but it is not so noted till 4.5.88 in the order sheet nor it contains any endorsement as regards its receipt. Surprisingly, the authority in session of the proceeding appears to have been apprised of the fact only on 16.5.88. The state of affair in oral evidence as also as per the above documents being cumulatively viewed the doubt gets fortified as regards the prosecution case that the appellant on 28.3.88 had made the demand of illegal gratification for the purpose of helping P.W. 8 in getting the caste certificate or even let us say that permission for sale of land by him to P.W.7 and others. Thus the very reason for lodging the FIR does not stand for being believed. Therefore, in my considered view the court in this case has to approach the evidence of the prosecution and appreciate the same on other factual aspects of the case with great care and caution. 17. The complainant in this case has been examined as P.W.8. He has not supported the prosecution case. Therefore, in my considered view the court in this case has to approach the evidence of the prosecution and appreciate the same on other factual aspects of the case with great care and caution. 17. The complainant in this case has been examined as P.W.8. He has not supported the prosecution case. Although he has been declared hostile and the prosecution had been permitted to cross-examine him, except drawing the attention of this witness to his previous statements made before hand which he has denied to have ever stated, no such further material has been brought out by the prosecution so as to suggest his dubious conduct if any to have developed latter for some reason or other. His evidence is that one Srihari Sahu was looking after the matter. In the above premises the evidence of Srihari Sahu who has been examined as P.W.7 bears importance. He states that P.W.8 had taken him to Balasore to obtain caste certificate from the Welfare Officer, as it was necessary for executing the registered sale deed which as already discussed is not acceptable. This P.W.7 is none other than the proposed vendee. He being the bonafide proposed vendee, is supposed to know that prior permission for sale is necessary and this appellant had no authority to grant it. He being the purchaser thus appears to have not made any enquiry that what are the necessary documents required for the execution of the sale deed and its registration. The evidence of this witness that they had gone to the appellant for the purpose is not believable as from the beginning he had known that P.W.8 was a member of scheduled caste and so there was only the requirement of permission for the sale transaction to materialize and not the caste certificate. Although this witness is a signatory to the F.I.R. yet he is not a member of the raiding party. The office of the appellant is in the Block Headquarters where the offices of the B.D.O. and Chairman are also there. None of them who are the superior in office have been told about this incident of demand of bribe by the appellant. The office of the appellant is in the Block Headquarters where the offices of the B.D.O. and Chairman are also there. None of them who are the superior in office have been told about this incident of demand of bribe by the appellant. It is also in the evidence of this witness that the appellant came out of his office room and on the verandah demanded the bribe when he also states that immediately on the approach of P.W.8, the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.100/- as bribe and when inability was expressed, he reduced the demand of bribe by half i.e. Rs.50/-. His further evidence is that thereafter they both went straight to the Vigilance Office. When the evidence of these witnesses are read together and viewed cumulatively, a doubt arises in mind in so far as the prosecution case is concerned concerning demand of bribe by the appellant prior to the raid and those when seen with the state of affair as found from the relevant case record are suggestive of the fact that these P.Ws.7 & 8 had some axe to grind. 18. Adverting to the evidence on the factum of acceptance of bribe by the appellant, the specific plea of the appellant be seen first. It is stated that he had told to have no competency to grant a caste certificate. When he was going out, there was insertion of something in the back pocket of his trouser and the appellant then immediately brought those out and finding those to be currency notes threw away. This version of the appellant finds corroboration from the evidence let in by the prosecution that the money was seized from the verandah near the office room. In order to reconcile, the prosecution has led evidence that when the appellant was asked about the receipt of bribe and Vigilance Officials were discussing with him in the matter, he threw the money. Then he was asked for his hand-wash. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 in cross-examination that after receipt of the signal, the members of the trap party rushed in and the Inspector caught hold of the hand of the appellant there and it was after the appellant was pointed out by Balram and then his pockets were not searched. Then he was asked for his hand-wash. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 in cross-examination that after receipt of the signal, the members of the trap party rushed in and the Inspector caught hold of the hand of the appellant there and it was after the appellant was pointed out by Balram and then his pockets were not searched. So if the Vigilance Officials had caught hold of the hands of the appellant, hardly there was the scope for him to bring out the currency notes from inside the back pocket of his trouser and throw those. Admittedly in this case, the appellant was caught at a distance of forty feet apart from the Block Office Building. Even accepting for a moment that he brought out the currency notes and threw those, it is also hard to believe that three currency notes of denominations of Rs.20+Rs.20+Rs.10 in total coming to Rs.50.00 would get spread beyond the office room. All these rather lead to believe the case of the appellant to be a probable one that no sooner did the currency notes were inserted in the back pocket of his trouser, those were thrown and at that time he was near the door of the office room proceeding towards the office of the B.D.O.. The evidence that seeing the vigilance people and after discussion with them, he threw those notes is rendered unbelievable. 19. The Chairman of the Panchayat Samiti has been examined as D.W.1 from the side of the appellant. He has deposed that when the appellant was going with him, the complainant kept something in the back pocket of his trouser. So the appellant immediately brought those and threw away, where-after the Vigilance Inspector and other staff caught hold of the hands of the appellant. His evidence has been discarded on the ground of some discrepancy with regard to the timing. The examination of this witness having been made after lapse of about twenty years, the trial court ought not to have attached any importance to such discrepancies particularly when the presence of this D.W.1 is not specifically denied. His evidence has been discarded on the ground of some discrepancy with regard to the timing. The examination of this witness having been made after lapse of about twenty years, the trial court ought not to have attached any importance to such discrepancies particularly when the presence of this D.W.1 is not specifically denied. Above being the state of affair in the evidence on record, taking a cumulative view on all those, I hold that the proved facts do not lead to draw a legitimate presumption that the appellant received or accepted the said currency notes on his own volition so as to hold that the factum of presumption and the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution go to prove the case of the prosecution as laid as regards demand and acceptance. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the finding of guilt as recorded by the trial Court against the appellant is held as unsustainable. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which have been impugned in this appeal are hereby set aside. 20. In the result, the appeal stands allowed.