STATE OF ODISHA Vs. PRATAP CHANDRA SUAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Odisha has preferred this CRLLP petition under Sec. 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against impugned judgment and order dtd. 9/2/2010 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur in T.R. No.75 of 1998 in acquitting the opposite party Pratap Chandra Suar of the charges under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter '1988 Act').

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the opposite party Pratap Chandra Suar entered into OSRTC Service in June 1956 as Traffic Inspector followed by his promotion as the A.T.M. in the year 1971 and he was promoted as the D.T.M. in the year 1984 and continued as such. All his three brothers and sisters were married and were living separately. He had landed properties extending to 40 Bharanas till the death of his father in the year 1992 and thereafter the same remained under the joint possession of himself and his brothers. He married to Saraswati Suar in the year 1962 and was blessed with two sons and two daughters and the daughters who got married long back. His eldest son got employed in NTPC since 1/9/1987 but his other son was a student of Engineering and unmarried. His residential house stood in the name of his wife and at the time of search and check, it came to the notice of the vigilance police that as against his income of Rs.6.92 lakhs which he earned since 1956 till 10/1/1992, his expenditure during that period came to Rs.5.00 lakh and thus his savings came to Rs.1.92 lakhs and that as against this probable savings of Rs.1.92 lakhs, he got assets worth of Rs.12.24 lakhs in excess of his said savings and accordingly, after investigation, the vigilance police of Berhampur placed charge sheet against the opposite party showing therein that as against his total income of Rs.10.53 lakhs during the said period, he incurred expenditure of a sum of Rs.7.14 lakhs, that as against the balance of Rs.3.39 lakhs being his probable savings, he had disproportionate assets worth of Rs.8.51 lakhs and that hence he was liable for punishment under sec. 13(2) of the 1988 Act.

(3.) The opposite party was charged under sec. 13(2) read with sec. 13(1)(2) of the 1988 Act on the accusation that during the period from 18/6/1956 to 10/1/1994, he being the Traffic Inspector, then the A.T.M. and then the D.T.M. under the O.S.R.T.C., Cuttack acquired assets worth of Rs.8.50 lakhs being disproportionate to his known sources income during the period, to which he pleaded not guilty.