NARASINGHA PATNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year for the offence under Section 5 (1) (c) and no separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 5 (l) (d), by Sri B. K. Behera, Special Judge, Bhubaneshwar on 22.12.1969 in context of the following facts.

(2.) THE appellant was serving as Samtary -cum -Food Inspector in Bhanjanagar Block -I from March, 1964 to March, 1966. While so working, it is alleged, in the year 1965 he abused his official power, collected food licence fees from 13 persons amounting to Rs. 72/ - (details given in the judgment of the learned Special Judge) and misappropriated the same by converting the amount to his own use. The defence was a flat denial of having received any money from the persons named and thus there was no question of misappropriation or abuse of official power. The specific case of the appellant was that one Natabar Padhi a disinfector, who was working under him, was transferred on a confidential report made by him to the District Health Officer, but he took leave, continued to stay at Bhanjanagar, and being a representative of the Ganjam District for Class IV Employees Association, joined hands with others including the Inspector of Vigilance who conspired and foisted this false case instigating some people to depose against him.

(3.) THERE were 26 witnesses for the prosecution and one for the defence. D. W. 1 Prasanna Kumar Patnaik is none but the younger brother of the appellant through whom it was sought to be proved that the appellant, as per his tour diary, was not at those places where he was alleged to have received any money and that this Natabar Padhi had manipulated certain petitions to have been filed against the appellant. The learned Judge while believing certain instances of misconduct to have been proved beyond doubt, substantially held the defence plea of conspiracy between Natabar Padhi and the Vigilance Inspector as baseless and further that there was no reason why different persons of different localities, unconnected with each other or Natabar, would depose falsely against the appellant merely to oblige Natabar to the great peril of the appellant.