RASANANDA PATRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has been convicted by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur under Section 161, I.P.C. and under Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention or Corruption Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and has been sentenced to R.I. for one year on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows : - The accused -appellant being a public servant employed as Upper Division Clerk and posted as Bench Clerk to the Additional Tahsildar in Cuttack Sadar Tahasil obtained Rupees 100/ - from Krushna alias Kusei Barik of Sankarpur (PW 11) on 26.6.1969 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for showing favour to him by getting an order passed in his favour by the Tahsildar on his petition for review of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 6/66 in favour of Raghunath Rout in exercise of his official function and thereby committed an offence under Section 161, I.P.C. It was further alleged that during the period from December 1968 to September 1969 the accused -appellant being a, public servant and in the same capacity as Bench Clerk to the Addl, Tahasildar in Cuttack Sadar Tahasil habitually accepted/obtained gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward from Indramani Sahu of Choudwar (PW 6) an amount of Rs. 70/ - on 31.12.1968 for issuing a vesting patta; from Golak Chandra Lenka of Mukundapur (PW 9) an amount of Rs. 43/ - and Kangali Maharana of Kathagara Sahi, Cuttack (PW 7) an amount of Rupees 35/ - on 20.2.1969 to show official favour to them on their petition made under Section 8(1) of O.E.A. Act; from Duryodhan Maharana of Choudwar an amount of Rs. 3/ - in June, 1969 for issuing copy of rent roll; and from Krushna alias Kusei Bank an amount of Rs. 100/ - on 26.9.1969 by abusing his position a public servant and thereby committed offences under Section 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act.

(3.) REGARDING the first contention Mr. Mohanty submitted that the sanction (Ext. 38) is not a valid sanction. There is no evidence to show what materials were produced before the Collector and District Magistrate who is the competent authority to accord sanction. There is clear absence of reference as to what materials were placed before the sanctioning authority on the basis of which the sanction has been accorded. He further submitted that P.W. 16, the Sub -Inspector of Police, Vigilance, who is the Investigating Officer has stated that he sent the written report to the S.P. which the S. P. forwarded to A.D.M, for according sanction. He had not personally met the A. D. M. and till the submission of chargesheet all the records of investigation were with him. From the above Mr. Mohanty argued that no records were produced before the sanctioning Authority, Neither the order of sanction nor the evidence of the relevant witnesses refers to any such materials. The sanctioning authority has not seen such materials. The sanctioning authority has not been examined in this case. He relied on a decision reported in (1972) 1 Cut LR (Cri) 48 (Govinda Chandra Sahu v. State) where in it has been held : -