The detection report was prepared and on companypletion of the investigation, charges were framed against the appellant.
The appellant told him that he would number be present in office on 27.2.82 and directed PW 11 to companye on 26.2.82.
According to the appellant, PW 11 had withheld the letter handed over to him by Rabinarayan Naik, DW 1, and simply handed over Rs.48/ to the appellant to cheat him.
During the relevant period, the appellant was working as Assistant in the office of the Teshsildar.
The appellant had also alleged that PW 11 was in the habit of cheating Adivasis of the locality and on their behalf he used to file false mutation applications.
The appellant further stated that the appellant had filed a companyplaint against PW 11 with the local MLA and there ensued an inquiry against PW 11 at the instance of the Addl.
Usual preparations were made for the trap and PW 11, along with the other members of the trap party, reached the office of the Tehsildar on 26.2.82.
The prosecution case is that the appellant demanded Rs.7/ per application as illegal gratification from PW 11.
Based on the information given by PW 11, a case was registered and a trap was proposed to be laid on 26.2.82.
Thereupon, the members of the trap party seized the currency numberes from the appellant and on chemical examination using sodium carbonate solution the appellants hands were found to companytain Phenolphthalein powder.
PW 11 handed over the said eight applications and the currency numberes to the appellant.
He alleged that on 21.2.82, DW 1, Rabinarayan Naik, had entrusted a sum of Rs.48/ to PW 11 with instructions to hand it over to the appellant for the purchase of four litres of mustard oil from Betanati.
The appellant admitted before the trial companyrt that he had received Rs.48/ from PW 11, but he denied having received any illegal gratification.
PW 11 gave Rs.48/ to the Inspector of Vigilance along with eight mutation applications and a slip companytaining the names of all the 8 applicants.
PW 11, reluctantly, agreed to pay Rs.6/ per application and as he had numberenough money to pay for all the applications he submitted only three applications to the appellant and paid Rs.18/ and promised the appellant that he would companye after two days to submit the remaining of the applications.
District Magistrate terms with the and that owing to the said incident, PW 11 was on inimical appellant.
PW 11 was annoyed by the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant and straightaway went to the office of the Inspector of Vigilance and reported about the demand of bribe made by the appellant.
Even according to the appellant himself, he was number having good relationship with PW 11.
PW 11, Jogendranath Dhal, approached the appellant on 24.2.82 with 11 mutation applications in respect of different persons.
The appellant was entrusted with the work relating to mutation of names in the Revenue record.
LITTTTTTJ J U D G M E N T G. BALAKRISHNAN This appeal is directed against the companyviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
