HEMANTA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant stands convicted under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of 'Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/ - or, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Orissa, Bhubaneswar, on 11 -1 -1971.

(2.) THE charge against the Appellant was that he was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income to the tune of Rs. 1,93,447.66 which he could not account for. But the learned Special Judge on the assessment of evidence came to the finding that such assets in the possession of the Appellant were of Rs. 53,000/ - only. However, even this he considered to be highly disproportionate to the known sources of income of the Appellant and hence convicted him.

(3.) ON 23 -8 -1967, Anadi Kumar Sinha (p.w. 49) the then Inspector of Vigilance, Puri Squad, lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 40) on the basis of confidential information that the Appellant was in possession of assets highly disproportionate to his known sources of income. Accordingly a case was registered vide Ext. 40 1. Ramesh Chandra Misra (p.w. 52) the then Dy.S.P. Vigilance, at Bhubaneswar investigated into the case. Under Search Warrant (Ext. 46) the official residence of the Appellant in New Capital. Bhubaneswar, was searched on 24 -8 -1967 in the presence of witnesses including a Magistrate (p.w. 3) and various articles were seized under search list (Ext. 3). The search commenced from midday and continued till mid -night in presence of the Appellant. The articles seized were given in the zima of the Appellant which were on different dates valued by different persons. p.w. 43 a Senior Technical -Officer (Accounts), Central Bureau of Investigation, Government of India, was entrusted with the work of preparing a disproportionate assets statement which he did - vide Ext. 39. (This contains 3 schedules and 8 Reports with a Note that his reports were subject to verification.) As calculated by p.w. 43, the income of the Appellant, as per Schedule 1, came to Rs. 3,61,226/ -, his total expenses, as per Schedule II, came to Rs. 1,67,090/ - thus leaving a saving of Rs. 1,94,136/ -. The total assets as per Schedule III, were valued at Rs. 3,74,920/ -. Thus according to p.w. 43, the disproportionate assets in the possession of the Appellant were worth Rs. 1,83,784/ - (that is, assets Rs. 3,74,920/ - minus savings Rs. 1,94,136/ -). Prasant Chandra Das (p.w. 42), another Dy. S.P., Vigilance took charge of the investigation from p.w. 52 on 14 -10 -1968. The Governor accorded sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant - vide Sanction Order (Ext. 26) dated 11 -1 -1969. p.w. 42 submitted charge -sheet against the Appellant on 7 -2 -1969 mentioning that the Appellant was in possession of assets worth Rs. 1,93,447.66, disproportionate to his known sources of income. On that basis the trial proceeded.