SUSANTA KUMAR TRIPATHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Cuttack in. T. R. Case No.141 of 2007 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as P.C. Act) and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees one lac) and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a further period of six months.

(2.) THE appellant entered into Government service as a Junior Engineer in March 1981 and was posted at different places and while he was working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) OTDC, Bhubaneswar, getting reliable information that he amassed wealth both movable and immovable in his name and in the name of his wife disproportionate to his known source of income, an enquiry was taken up. On the strength of a search warrant issued by the learned C.J.M., Cuttack his rented house at Bhubaneswar and the government quarters at WALAMI Project, Pratapnagari, Cuttack were simultaneously searched on 15.12.1993 by the Vigilance Personnel of Vigilance Cell Cuttack in presence of witnesses and the appellant and his wife and it was found that during the check period i.e. 27.2.1981 to 15.12.1993 his income was Rs.2,36,500/ - and expenditure Rs.1 ,82,425/ - and as such his probable saving was Rs.54,075/ - but he was found in possession of property both movable and immovable to the tune of Rs.3,37,562.95 paise in his name and in the name of his wife. So, the disproportionate asset was Rs.2,83,487.95 paise during the check period. On 3.1.1994 the Inspector of Vigilance Cell, Cuttack (P.W.9) lodged a written report in this regard before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Cuttack Division, Cuttack and accordingly Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.2 of 1994 corresponding to V.G.R. case No.2/ 94 of the Court of C.J.M. Cuttack was registered' under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (e) of the P.C. Act and the S.P. (Vigilance) directed P.W.9 to investigate into the case. Accordingly, P.W.9 investigated into it and after conclusion of investigation and obtaining sanction order from the competent authority submitted charge sheet before the C.J.M. Cuttack under the aforesaid Sections showing that the appellant was in possession of property both movable and immovable in his name and the name of his wife, Archana Tripathy to the tune of Rs.3, 12,058.65 paise disproportionate to his known source of income for which he could not satisfactorily account for. After preparation of two sets of copies of police paper, the learned C.J.M. transferred the case record along with the connected papers including the copies of police papers to the Special Judge (Vigilance) Bhubaneswar, who registered the case as T.R. Case No.111 of 1999 and took cognizance of the offence under the aforesaid sections. Sometime thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance) Cuttack, who renumbered it as T.R. Case No. 141 of 2007 and framed charge against the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The plea of the appellant was that even though he entered into Government service in 1976 and made a substantial income from his salary, it was not taken into account. His income from house rent was also not taken into consideration. The income of his wife from Diary Farm and Prawn Culture business and the property gifted ,to her at the time of marriage were added to his income and assets illegally.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that as found from the evidence of D.W.1, Archana Tripathy, (wife of the appellant) 15 to 16 Bhari (150 -160 gms) of gold ornaments were gifted to her by her father at the time of her marriage This has also been reflected by the appellant in his property statement (Ext.20). As found from the evidence of P.W.3, at the time of search of the rented house of the appellant, D.W.1 had also stated that the gold ornaments seized, had been gifted to her by her father at the time of her marriage. But the trial Court disbelieved it holding that the appellant in his property statement reflected that his wife, (D.W.1 ) was having 200 gms of gold ornaments, but on 15.12.1993 during search of the rented house of the appellant only 74.550 gms. of gold ornaments were recovered. In fact D.W.1 during his cross -examination stated that she sold some gold ornaments for Rs.30,000/ - during 1993. So, it can be inferred that she sold 75.450 to 76.450 grams of gold in the year 1993. According to learned counsel for the appellant adding the value of 74.50 gms gold to the asset of the appellant is absolutely illegal. On perusal of the trial Court judgment, it is found that the trial Court disbelieved that 200 grams of gold ornaments were gifted to the wife of the appellant (D.W.1) by her father at the time of her marriage not only because at the time of house search 74.45 grams of gold ornaments were found, but also the property statement given by the appellant on 15.3.1993 (Ext.20) reflected that 200 grams of gold ornaments were acquired by D.W.1 in the year 1981, while D.W.1 in her evidence stated that she got married to the appellant in the year 1980. So the trial Court rightly held that the seized gold ornaments were not gifted to D.W.1 at the time of her marriage in the year 1980. I am not in one with the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard.