BIMBADHAR PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question canvassed in this appeal by special leave is whether the ruling of this Court in the case of Topan Das vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 33, governs this case also, in a view of the fact that the appellant is the only person out of the accused persons placed on trial, who has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy under S. 120-B, I. P. C. The point arises in the following way:

(2.) The appellant and four others were placed on their trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Sambalpur for offences under Ss. 120-B, 409, 477-A and 109, Penal Code with having committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust in respect of Government property and falsification of accounts with a view to defraud the Government. The appellant was the District Food Production Officer at Sambalpur and the other four accused persons were agricultural sub-overseers in charge of their respective areas under the appellant. Another such agricultural sub-overseer was Pitabas Sahu at Bargarh centre. He was examined at the trial as P. W. 25 and shall hereinafter be referred to as the approver. The prosecution case is that in furtherance of the Grow More Food Scheme initiated by Government it was decided to subsidize the supply of oil cake to agriculturists with a view of augmenting the production of food crops. Cultivators were to be supplied this variety of manure at Rs. 4-4-0 per maund, though the Government had to spend Rs. 7-21-0 per maund. The appellant entered into a conspiracy with his subordinate staff including the agricultural sub-overseer aforesaid to misappropriate the funds thus placed at their disposal for the procurement and supply of oil cake to cultivators. To bolster up the quantity of oil cakes to be procured, they showed false transactions of purchase and distribution thereof and falsified accounts, vouchers, etc. Thus they were alleged to have misappropriated the sum of Rs. 4,943-4-0 of Government money.

(3.) A large volume of oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The three assessors who assisted at the trial were of the opinion that none of the accused was guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge in agreement with the assessors acquitted the four agricultural sub-overseers aforesaid of all charges, giving them the benefit of the doubt. But in disagreement with the assessors he convicted the appellant under all the charges and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four and a half years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under S. 409, Penal Code, and to rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Ss. 120-B and 477-A of the Code, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. The learned trial Judge observed in the course of his judgment as follows:-