BENUPANI BEHERA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner faced trial being charged under Section 419/420/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') on the accusation that he was a party to impersonation and cheating, resulting in improper payment of land acquisition compensation.

(2.) THE synoptical presumption of the case of the prosecution is as follows : On 5 -9 -1979, one Madhab Majhi impersonated as Sanu Golari, and received Rs. 7,718.80 from the Zone Officer, Land Acquisition Upper Kolab at Lamtaput, towards land acquisition compensation payable to the said Sanu Golari. Accused Madhab Majhi was identified by the Petitioner, and other accused persons namely, Adu Majhi and Dhanurjaya Guntha. When actual claimant Ronila Golari, widow of sanu Golari complained regarding non - payment of compensation, indiscretion of Madhab Majhi was found out. First Information Report was lodged by the Zone Officer, and after investigation charge -sheet was submitted against the petitioner and other three named accused persons. The case was numbered as G. R. Case No. 103 of 1980. Learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Koraput (in short, the 'SDJM') on consideration of evidence of the witnesses held petitioner guilty under Section 109, IPC for abetting the offence punishable under Section 419 and 420, IPC, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Other accused persons were also convicted and sentenced to various sentences. Appeals were preferred by the present petitioner and other accused persons which were numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 7 and 4 of 1988 respectively which were re -numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 36 and 33 of 1988 and were heard by learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) PETITIONER took a definite stand that he was new to the Place and was not knowing the persons to whom amounts were to be disbursed and therefore was reluctant to identify any claimant. But on the assurance by the Zone Officer that everything was in order, he put his signature. He had no role to play even if any wrong payment was made to Madhab Majhi. Learned SDJM did not accept this plea and held him guilty, which conclusion was affirmed in appeal. The conviction and sentence were maintained.