LAWS(ORI)-1983-8-22

MD. SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On August 10, 1983
MD. SABIR HUSSAIN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCEPTING the case of the prosecution that the Appellant, while functioning as a public servant as Range Officer, Forest Range Office (Kendu Leaf), Khariar, in the year 1973, dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and converted to his on use a part of the sums entrusted with him under two accounts namely, P.L. Account and 70 Forest Accounts, in between March 7, 1973 and November 3, 1973, the learned Special Judge, Sambalpur, has convicted the Appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (the 'Act' for short) and sentenced him thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The Appellant also stands convicted for criminal breach of trust in respect of that amount under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (the 'Code' for short) and sentenced there under to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Judge has directed that the sentence would run concurrently.

(2.) TO bring home the charges to the Appellant, the prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses. The Appellant's case was that he had not misappropriated the amount, investigation had not properly been conducted and a number of items of expenditure supported by vouchers had not been taken into account. He had examined one witness in his defence.

(3.) AS provided in Section 6 of the Act, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Act alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction of the authority competent to remove him from his office. As has been submitted at the Bar, the Conservator of Forests (P.W. 15) was the authority competent to remove the Appellant from his office. P.W. 15 had accorded sanction vide Ext. 26, the sanction order and in his evidence, he had testified: