STATE Vs. BHARAT CHANDRA ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused joined State Government Service as Assistant Inspector of Supplies in 1959 and was promoted as Inspector of Supplies. While he was posted at Marshaghai in Cuttak district, information was received that he has possessed pecuniary resources and property which is disproportionate to his known sources of income. Accordingly, he was charge-sheeted after investigation to face trial of the offence under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Cognizance was taken by the learned Special Judge who found accused to be in possession of pecuniary resources and property beyond his known sources of income. But such disproportion having been found to be less than 8% of the income, accused was acquitted. In this appeal the said acquittal is assailed.

(2.) Mr. Debasis Das, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that accused being a public servant, possession of pecuniary resources by him or on his behalf of at any time during his continuance as public servant which is found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income would attract punishment for criminal misconduct under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act. It is submitted that accused submitted his property statement in 1968. If the same is accepted, his income for subsequent period would not justify his purchase of immovable property and deposit of huge amounts in his name, in name of his wife and minor children. Therefore, in absence of any explanation of the source at the time of purchase of landed properties or deposits accused is guilty. Trial court not having considered evidence adduced in this light the judgment is vulnerable. Mr. Das relying upon the property statement submitted in 1968 submitted that his salary thereafter, average income from landed properties and the amount of Rs. 12,000/- received by his wife at the time of their marriage as reflected in the property statement would not be sufficient to justify the purchase of land and deposits. Thus, the offence has been made out.

(3.) Mr. S. K. Mund, learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that the check period is between August, 1959 and end of 1974. Charge was that as on 4-2-1976 he has pecuniary resources and property for the period between August 1959 and 1974 to be disproportionate. Therefore, in absence of specific charge in respect of disproportionate asset within a definite period, as suggested by learned Additional Government Advocate, accused has not been given opportunity to explain the same and in case the same is bifurcated in this appeal, accused would be prejudiced. Mr. Mund submitted that sanction under Section 6 of the Act in this case being invalid accused is also entitled to acquittal. Added to it, Mr. Mund submitted that there being evidence in this case that wife of accused had independent sources of income, deposits in her name and in names of their children should not be treated to be pecuniary resources of accused in possession or on his behalf by his wife and children. However, the said question would not be important since prosecution has not proved the deposits by legal evidence as the copies of the Post Office ledger produced are not certified copies as required under the Bankers' Evidence Act.