GOPAL MINZ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused convicted Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and Section 420/46 and 471 IPC,. and convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in short, is that from 21 -1 -1975 till 1 -1 -1980, accused was posted as Amin in the office of Tahasildar, Sundargarh. During that period, by corrupt and illegal means and by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, he obtained pacuniary advantage from Smt. Lal Badaik daughter or PW 6 by issuing false patta (record -of -right) in her favour. During vigilance enquiry, it was revealed that Etwa Badaik (PW 6) applied for settlement of a piece of Government land in his possession in name of his daughter Lal Badaik. When accused came to his village, 2 to 3 months after, he identified the Government land in favour of daughter of PW 6 and took Rs. 100/ - from PW 6. After a few days, PW 6 went to Sundargarh Tahasil Office and received a patta for land in favour of his daughter from the accused after paying Rs. 100/ - to him as bribe as per his demand. This patta was issued in respect of Ac. 1. 97 decimals in reference to encroachment case No 89//76 of the office or Tahasildar which contained seal of the Tahasildar and purported to have been signed by PW 11, the then Additional. Tahasildar. On enquiry it was found that in the number referred to in the patta (Ext, 5), no case has been initiated against Lal Bodaik. Signature of PW 11 was found to be forged. Accordingly, charge -sheet was submitted on the basis of which accused was charged and prosecuted for. the offence. Accused denied the charges and pleaded his innocence.

(3.) PW 6 is the only witness in support of prosecution case that he paid Rs. 200/ - to appellant and got Ext. 5 in favour of his daughter. Case number mentioned in Ext.5 is wrong which relates to another person. PW 11 denied his signature on Ext. 5. This is all the material evidence in this case. If evidence of PW 6 would be accepted, it can be found that he paid Rs. 200/ - to appellant and received Ext. 5 where signature of PW 11 is not genuine as stated by PW 11.