Rama Ch.Parida Vs State

This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No.89 of 1999 arising out of VGR Case No.97 of 1999. The Appellant, having stood trial for the offences under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, “the P.C. Act”), was found guilty and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year on each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count, with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶15

The case of the prosecution, as unfolded before the trial court, is that the Informant had purchased a piece of land by executing a registered Sale Deed in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ranpur on 14.10.1996. The vendor had authorised the Deed Writer, Sanand Patnaik, to receive the registered Sale Deed on behalf of the complainant. The document was to be collected on 18.10.1996. It is

¶16

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶17

Page 1 of 17

¶18

alleged that on 18.10.1996 and again on 25.10.1996, Sri Patnaik approached the Head Clerk, Ramachandra Parida (the Appellant), requesting delivery of the Sale Deed, but the latter avoided doing so and asked that the vendee be brought. Consequently, the complainant approached the Appellant on 27.10.1996 and again on 30.10.1996. On 01.11.1996, when the complainant again approached the Appellant, he allegedly demanded Rs.200/- as illegal gratification for release of the Sale Deed. The complainant, being aggrieved, lodged a written report with the Vigilance leading to registration of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.87/1996. During investigation, a trap was laid and the Record-keeper, Krushna Chandra Mohanty, was caught red-handed while accepting Rs.200/from the complainant. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the Appellant and the said Recordkeeper for the offences under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and 7 of the P.C. Act.

¶19

To prove its case, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in total. P.W.1 being the ADM-cum-District Registrar, Nayagarh, who accorded the sanction for trap; P.W.2 being the Magisterial witness; P.W.3 being the Scientific Officer, S.F.S.L., Bhubaneswar; P.W.4 being the Over-hearing witness; P.W.5 being a co-villager of the Decoy; P.W.6 being the Junior Clerk at the Office of Sub-Registrar; P.W.7 being the Decoy/Complainant; P.W.8 being the I.O./Inspector (Vigilance); and exhibited sixteen documents (Exts.1 to 16/4), besides producing M.Os.I to IX. The defence examined four witnesses and proved one document (Ext.A).

¶20

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶21

Page 2 of 17

¶22

The defence plea was one of complete denial and false implication.

¶23

The learned trial court, finding the prosecution evidence cogent and free from doubt and proved beyond reasonable doubt, held the present Appellant guilty of the charges while acquitting the co-accused, the Record-keeper, under Section 248(1) CrPC on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the case against him.

¶24

Mr. Mohapatra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellant, assailed the impugned judgment contending that the findings are contrary to evidence and law and suffer from total nonapplication of judicial mind. It was argued that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance, and in the absence of clear and legally acceptable evidence, the learned trial court ought not to have convicted the Appellant. He submitted that the trial court overlooked the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7 which clearly suggest that the Appellant was not present at the time of the trap, whereas the Record-keeper who was custodian of the documents was acquitted. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the prosecution witnesses, including the complainant (P.W.7) and the overhearing witness (P.W.4), gave inconsistent and contradictory versions. He further argued that the trap witnesses were interested and partisan and their evidence lacked corroboration on material particulars. The prosecution also failed to examine material witness Sananda Patnaik, the Moharir who was entrusted with receiving the Sale Deed. It was submitted that the contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the overhearing witness strike at the root of the prosecution case.

¶25

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶26

Page 3 of 17

¶27

Additionally, it was argued that there was no valid sanction for prosecution of the Appellant and the trial court erred in overlooking this legal infirmity.

¶28

Mr. Rizvi, learned counsel for the Vigilance, supported the impugned judgment contending that the findings are based on consistent, coherent and trustworthy evidence proving both demand and acceptance. He submitted that the evidence of the complainant, overhearing witness and trap team members is fully corroborated and the trial court has analysed the material in accordance with law. Hence, no interference is warranted.

¶29

Before adverting to the rival submissions and undertaking an analysis of the evidence on record, it would be apposite to briefly examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution through its witnesses during trial.

¶30

P.W.1 , Purna Chandra Behera stated that the Appellant was the Head Clerk and one Krushna Chandra Mohanty was the Sr. Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ranpur during the relevant period. According to the witness, in the capacity of District Registrar, he was the competent authority for their dismissal form service as per law. On the basis of the requisition received from S.P. Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division, Bhubaneswar, he accorded seeking sanction for launching prosecution against the Appellant. Upon perused the Police Papers and the consolidated report of S.P. Vigilance and having a discussion with the I.O. on being satisfied that the Appellant and another to have committed the offence, he accorded the sanction. Nothing much could be elicited from the witnesses. In course of his cross-examination, the witness though

¶31

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶32

Page 4 of 17

¶33

stated to have perused the documents as placed before him by the I.O. he could not spell out all those, he perused and expressed his inability to remember the nature of the documents placed before him besides the FIR, the report of the S.P., the preparation report and the detection report.

¶34

As far as P.W.2 is concerned, he was a witness to the trap laid on 04.11.1996. According to this witness, the complainant being present in the Vigilance Office narrated his grievance disclosing the fact that the Head Clerk, the Appellant herein demanded Rs.200/- from him to return the Sale Deed executed in his favour as purchased by him and he further disclosed that he lodged the FIR at the Vigilance Police Station. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination wherein in he answered that four numbers of Rs.50/- G.C. notes was produced by the Informant which he brought for to the Appellant. He also stated that these notes were treated with chemical powder after noting down the numbers of the notes, demonstration was made to show the use and effect of the power in chemical solution, hand wash sample was preserved. He further stated that the tainted notes were given to the Informant in a fourfold paper with instruction to make payment only on demand and he was asked to compare the numbers of the notes at the time of detection. He also stated one Subash Chandra Dalei (P.W.4) was asked to accompany the Informant with instruction to overhear conversation between the Appellant and the Informant and to give signal after the transaction. He also stated that a preparation report was made in his presence and proved the report vide Ext.3. According to this witness, the accompanying witness was sitting on the entrance door of the Office of Sub-

¶35

CRLA No.185 of 2010 Page 5 of 17

¶36

Registrar and the Informant received the documents from the Record Keeper, the co-accused and the Vigilance staff caught hold of the hands of the Record Keeper, Sri Mohanty and on which challenged he too have agreed to have received the bribe from the Informant and the accused, Record Keeper admitted to have received Rs.200/- from the Informant, and told that he had kept it in his left side chest pocket and accordingly, the Record Keeper, Mohanty was told that he kept the money as per the instruction of the Head Clerk, Rama Chandra Parida. In course of his crossexamination, the witness admitted to be a witness in another vigilance case and admitted to have not personally enquired from the Informant about the truthfulness of the allegation made in the FIR. He admitted the Appellant to be not present at the office when he entered into the office from outside.

¶37

P.W.3 , Pradip Kumar Samantray was stated to be an official of SFSL engaged as Scientific Officer at SFSL, Bhubaneswar. He stated to have examined the incriminating materials and submitted his report vide Ext.2, no such material has been elicited from the witness by cross-examination.

¶38

P.W.4 , Subash Chandra Dalei is the star witness who stated to be the Small Saving Officer in the Office of the Sub-Collector, Khurda on 04.11.1996. He supported the case of the prosecution with his statement that the Complainant when was introduced to them, he expressed his compliant before them that the Head Clerk Mr. Parida of sub-Registrar‟s Office, Ranpur had been demanding bribe of Rs.200/- for release of the registered Sale Deed and the Complainant produced four numbers of fifty rupees G.C. notes

¶39

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶40

Page 6 of 17

¶41

before them, demonstration was made to show the effect some powder in some solution. He further stated that the Informant was instructed to hand over those tainted G.C. notes to the accused on his demand and he was asked to accompany him and to overhear conversation between the accused and Informant and to give signal after the transaction. The witness narrated the manner in which they proceeded to the Office of the Sub-Registrar. The witness clearly stated that he does not remember the co-accused, Shri Mohanty had handed over the Sale Deed to the Complainant in his presence and that the accused, Parida told co-accused Mohanty to keep Rs.200/from the Complainant and to give the Sale Deed to him. He also could not say wherefrom the Sale Deed was brought at the time of seizure and on hearing the instruction of Shri Parida to accused Mohanty to keep Rs.200/- and to give the Sale Deed to the Complaint, he went out to give signal to the Vigilance. He does not know about the discussion between the accused Shri Parida and Shri Mohant after the aforesaid incident; after giving signal to the Vigilance team, he stated to have returned to the record room and by that time, accused Parida had gone back to his room. He also declined to have remembered the statement made by him before the I.O. that the accused Parida was his boss and on his instruction, he has received the money. He also denied the fact that he had not accompanied the Complainant to the accused Shri Parida and have not seen any transaction and that he was standing near the entrance gate of the office. This witness too admitted to be a witness in another trap case, nothing material could be elicited from this witness also on the factum of demand by the Appellant and the acceptance of the bribe by the co-accused.

¶42

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶43

Page 7 of 17

¶44

P.W.5 , Bidyadhar Parida, he stated on oath that about eleven to twelve years before his examination in the court, he had sold 40 decimals of land to Ajaya Kumar Behera on consideration money of Rs.11,000/- and the Sale Deed was registered before SubRegistrar, Ranpur. He further stated that one Sananda Patnaik scribed the Sale Deed and Ajay Behera authorized to Sananda Pattnaik to scribe of the Sale Deed and to receive the registered Sale Deed from Sub-Registrar Office as he was not in a position to come later. This witness has not been cross-examined substantially by the defence except a suggestion to which he denied.

¶45

P.W.6 , Brajabandhu Pradhan is the Junior Clerk in the Office of the Sub-Registrar during the relevant period. In his evidence on oath, he stated to be witness to compare the documents in the Office and stated that the Sl. Nos. are given in the registered documents, the Record Keeper is the custodian of registered Sale Deeds, if the same was not being received by the concerned person, on the very dated of presentation of the Sale Deed, it is being registered, if delivery is being taken within fifteen days, penalty of Rs.1/- is being charged for fifteen days. The Record Keeper used to give endorsement relating to amount of penalty and according to witness, it appears from the attested photocopy of fee book that there is no date of delivery against the appropriate column and Brajasundar Mohapatra was Sub-Registrar on 04.11.1996. According to the witness, it appears that Brajasundar Mohapatra had attested the copy of the fee book Ext.12. He further stated that the true copy of the register showing delivery of documents vide Ext.13 and the Deed was not delivered till 25.10.199. According to this witness, the Head Clerk is to prepare the check list as proved

¶46

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶47

Page 8 of 17

¶48

vide Ext.14. He further stated that the entries in the second page of check list have been made by K. C. Mohanty, the co-accused. On 14.10.1996 K. C. Mohanty and R. C. Parida had signed at the bottom of page of the check list. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that one R. C. Parida was Sub-Registrar of Ranpur and he has signed in the check list in the capacity of Sub-Registrar and the date is being given in the registration ticket for delivery of document, the document was handed over to the person whom the transferer names in the body of registration ticket and that no other person is authorized to receive the document unless the transferer specifically endorses his name on the body of the registration ticket.

¶49

P.W.7 , Ajay Kumar Behera is the Informant who in course of his evidence on oath stated that on 31.10.1996 the Sale Deed was not given to Sananda and on 01.11.1996 he went to Sub-Registrar Office and met the Appellant-Rama Ch. Parida he demanded Rs.200/- for giving the Sale Deed towards bribe, he also asked him to bring the authorization from Sananda along with money, when he expressed his reluctance to pay bribe, he threatened for undervaluation, he therefore, reported the matter to Inspector Vigilance Khurda on 03.11.1996 vide Ext.16, he was asked to come to Vigilance Office on 04.11.1996 and on that day, he appeared before the Inspector Vigilance Khurda and in presence of the Vigilance officials as well as the witnesses narrated the content of the FIR and told that the demand of bribe of Rs.200/- was made by Rama Ch. Parida for releasing the Regd. Sale Deed. He also admitted to have produced four numbers of 50 rupees notes before the trap party members. This witness categorically stated that on the relevant day at 11:00 a.m. he along with other proceeded to the

¶50

CRLA No.185 of 2010 Page 9 of 17

¶51

Sub-Registrar Office, Ranapur and reached their at 12:45 p.m., he proceeded by walk to the office room of Appellant-Parida, Subash followed him, he entered inside the room, Subash, overhearing witness stood near the door, he paid respect to Rama Ch. Parida, Appellant-Parida enquired whether he had brought the demanded money answering it in affirmative the witness stated that on the instruction of Mr. Parida who came to the record room followed by Krushna Mohanty, the Record Keeper, the Appellant asked Krushna Mohanty to receive Rs.200/- from him and to handover the Sale Deed. Accordingly, the Sale Deed was handed over by Krushna Mohanty and he also stated that Krushna Mohanty received money from him along with authorization and handed over the Sale Deed. He also stated that the overhearing witness Mr. Dalai followed him and when he gave signal, other members of trap party came to the Office. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that Sananda Patnaik was working as Moharir in the Sub-Registrar Office, Ranapur, he used to scribe the Sale Deed and presented for registration., he is also working there for the last 20 years, he had no acquaintance with the Appellant-Parida prior to the trap, he had no acquaintance with Sananda, the Moharir prior to the trap and he had not purchased any other land prior to the purchase of land in question and he had no knowledge about the manner of obtaining Sale Deed from Sub-Registrar Office he also could not say whether actually Sananda had gone on 18.10.1996 and 25.10.1996 to collect Sale Deed from Appellant-Parida and that on 27.10.1996 he met Sananda in market where he told Sananda had not accompanied with him on 30.10.1996 when he had been to Shri Parida prior to 14.10.1996. The witness denied the Appellant to be not present in

¶52

CRLA No.185 of 2010 Page 10 of 17

¶53

the record room when Vigilance staff entered inside that room and also denied the fact that the Appellant had never demanded bribe of Rs.200/- from him and he never approached to return the Sale Deed and Appellant-Parida never delivered Regd. Sale Deed to any person and that it is only the Record Keeper who used to deliver Regd. Sale Deed, there is no authorization in the registration ticket in my favour to receive the Regd. Sale Deed. Nothing material could be elicited from this witness too to shake his testimony.

¶54

P.W.8 , Padma Ch. Patra is the I.O. who narrated the manner in which the investigation was carried on, the seizure was made, the trap was laid and finally implicate the Appellant to be the person at whose instance the co-accused-Krushna Ch. Mohanty received the bribe money.

¶55

Having carefully examined the evidence brought on record, it is pertinent to note the settled legal position governing offences under the PC Act. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted money, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charges against an accused under the PC Act. To sustain a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant voluntarily accepted the money, knowing it to be a bribe. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that the demand for illegal gratification is sine qua non for establishing an offence under these provisions. A Five-Judge Bench in Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT, Delhi) , reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731 , reiterated this principle as follows:

¶56

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶57

Page 11 of 17

¶58

“ 68 . What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:

¶59

(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (i) and(ii) of the Act.

¶60

(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

¶61

(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

¶62

(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

¶63

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

¶64

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶65

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13 (1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶66

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13 (1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.

¶67

Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13 (1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶68

(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by

¶69

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶70

Page 13 of 17

¶71

relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.

¶72

(f) In the event the Complainant turns „hostile‟, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

¶73

(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶74

(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point (e) as the

¶75

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶76

Page 14 of 17

¶77

former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.

¶78

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has further held that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act in the matter of P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. State of A.P reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152, while relying upon B. Jayaraj vs. State of A.P., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55, as follows: -

¶79

“23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder”.

¶80

Tested on the touchstone of the settled legal principles reiterated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Neeraj Dutta (supra) and P. Satyanarayana Murthy (supra), the evidence on record falls short of satisfying the indispensable requirements for sustaining the conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the P.C. Act. A cumulative assessment of the prosecution evidence unmistakably demonstrates that on the date of the trap, the tainted currency notes were not received by the appellant. It is the admitted position

¶81

CRLA No.185 of 2010 Page 15 of 17

¶82

emerging from the prosecution case itself that the tainted money was recovered from the co-accused, namely, the Record Keeper, Krushna Chandra Mohanty, and not from the appellant.

¶83

The sole incriminating circumstance sought to be projected against the appellant is the alleged demand of illegal gratification for release of the registered sale deed. However, even according to the prosecution, the complainant approached the Record Keeper on the date of occurrence and it was the Record Keeper who received the tainted money. The prosecution case proceeds on the premise that such receipt was on the instruction of the appellant. This allegation, in the absence of any independent and reliable corroboration, cannot be elevated to the level of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Significantly, the co-accused Record Keeper, from whose possession the tainted money was recovered and whose handwash yielded positive results, has been acquitted by the trial court, and such acquittal has admittedly attained finality, having not been assailed by the prosecution.

¶84

It is trite that proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification constitutes the sine qua non for establishing offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. While the prosecution has been able to demonstrate that the handwash of the co-accused turned pink, thereby indicating receipt of the tainted money, there is no legally sustainable material on record to establish that the appellant either accepted the bribe or caused its acceptance through the co-accused. The allegation that the co-accused received the money at the behest of the appellant, without the co-accused supporting such a version and in the face of

¶85

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶86

Page 16 of 17

¶87

his acquittal, cannot, by itself, form the basis of a conviction of the appellant.

¶88

For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that in the absence of cogent and convincing evidence establishing the foundational facts of demand and acceptance qua the appellant, the statutory presumptions under the P.C. Act do not arise. The prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Appellant so as to attract the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The findings recorded by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar, in so far as they relate to the appellant, cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be interfered with.

¶89

The judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 89 of 1999, is hereby set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.

¶90

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

¶91

Signature Not Verified

¶92

Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 19-Dec-2025 18:56:47

¶93

CRLA No.185 of 2010

¶94

Page 17 of 17

Rama Ch.Parida v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Ch.Parida v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Kumar Vs Republic of India

Omm Shree Sai Seva Educational Trust, Keonjhar Vs State of Odisha

Minaketan Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sashibhusan Bhoi Vs State of Orissa

Prasanta K. Rath Vs Republic of India

Madan Nath Vs State of Odisha