The Orissa High Court in, Brahamananda Sahu v. State of Orrisa (Vigilance), declined to quash proceedings under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, just because the informant turned hostile at the stage of the investigation. It stated that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused/petitioner would still depend on the probative value of other evidence including that of the over-hearing witness.
Facts:
A case was instituted against the Petitioner on basis of a complaint by the informant with the allegation made therein regarding the illegal demand of Rs.23,000/- as a bribe by the petitioner from the informant for an electricity connection. A trap was laid by the Vigilance team and the said amount was recovered from the petitioner and seized. The Petitioner was charge-sheeted under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) besides Section 7 of the PCA, 1988. Petitioner thereafter filed the present petition u/s 482 seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Contention of Petitioner:
It is the case of the petitioner that the informant did not support the trap and recovery of the bribe amount from the petitioner while being examined during the investigation and therefore, the entire prosecution would now have to depend on the evidence of the over-hearing witness but the same is not sufficient to prove and establish the fact of illegal demand of bribe and its acceptance which are the essential ingredients to be satisfied. Further, the ingredients of Section 13(1)(b) of the PCA are also not satisfied.
Contention of Prosecution:
The contention of the Petitioner is not tenable for quashing the proceedings as there was another material on record to support the case. Reliance was placed on Vinod Kumar Vrs. State of Punjab, (2015) 3 SCC 220.
Court’s Observation:
The Court observed that no doubt the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance shall have to be established but even when a material witness does not support the prosecution after
being a part of the alleged trap at whose instance it was laid, notwithstanding his hostile testimony during the investigation, the whole of the evidence cannot be discarded. The informant’s testimony though has in the meantime become inconsistent with the prosecution’s claim and cannot be a ground to quash the entire proceeding. Reliance was placed on Deepak Mohapatra Vrs. State of Orissa 2002 (23) OCR 369 to contend that contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses cannot be a ground for quashing a criminal proceeding.
The decision of the Court:
The Bench thus declined to quash the proceedings.
Case Title: Brahamananda Sahu v. State of Orrisa (Vigilance)
Coram: JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Case No: CRLMC No.5247 of 2015
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Hemanta Ku. Mund, Advocate Miss. A.K.Dei, Advocate
Advocate for Respondent: Mr. P.K. Pani, SC & Mr. Niranjan Moharana, ASC for the Vigilance Department
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
