LAWS(ORI)-1981-11-20

CHARU CHANDRA PATNAIK Vs. STATE

Decided On November 23, 1981
Charu Chandra Patnaik Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant stands convicted under Section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the Code) for having dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated, while functioning as the Sub -Assistant Registrar (Industries) at Jeypore, a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - of the Maithili Hand Pounding Co -operative Society (hereinafter called the Society) in the district of Koraput of which Jaya Singh Majhi (since dead), the father of Had Majhi (P.W. 4), was the President, by dishonestly inducing Jaya Singh Majhi to deliver two slips signed by him and the pass book and the seal of the Society falsely representing that the accounts of the Society had to be set right and having drawn an amount of Rs. 2,000/ - on 17 -9 -1970, misappropriating it and obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself, by abusing his position as a public servant and by corrupt and illegal means. On the basis of a written report (Ext. 4) dated 18 -9 -1972 of the Impactor of Vigilance stationed at Jeypore, the Officer -in -Charge of the Vigilance Police Station at Berhampur drew up the formal first information report (Ext. 5) and the Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 7), being authorised, took up the investigation in the course of which he examined the witnesses and seized certain documents. Another Inspector of Vigilance (P.W. 8) took over charge of the investigation of this case, received the sanction order (Ext. 10) for the prosecution of the Appellant and ultimately another officer submitted the charge -sheet against the Appellant.

(2.) THE Appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge. His case can conveniently be stated from his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(3.) MR . P.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that sanction had not duly been accorded for the prosecution of the Appellant. According to him, none of the charges had been established and the case of the Appellant which was reasonable and probable, ought to have been accepted. Mr. Ajit Rath, the learned Additional Standing Counsel, has, however, submitted that none of the two contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant can prevail.