NIRANJAN MISHRA Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant having been convicted for offence under sections 477, I.P.C. and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with payment of fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count which are to run concurrently has preferred this appeal. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.6 of 2001 are thus now impugned in this appeal.

(2.) Prosecution case is that the appellant was a clerk in the Employees Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as "EPFO"). The said organization used to receive, keep deposit and manage the provident fund subscription of the employees. The subscriptions are contributed by the employees and their employers on monthly basis. Facilities are available to the employees to take advances against such balance in the account. For the purpose of medical treatment, marriage, post-matriculation examination of children etc., the limit to take loan is to the extent of 50% of the accumulation in employee's share for the purpose of defraying marriage expenses. The limit against such other advances stands that it should not extend three times of his basic emoluments. The employer's share can only be taken as an advance only in case of purchase, development, construction of dwelling house provided of course there has been completion of five years of service by the subscribers with minimum balance standing at Rs. 1,000/- in his own share. Otherwise, the employer's share is to be paid to the employees only at the time of retirement or resignation of his service or on his death.

(3.) The allegation in the instant case is with regard to falsification of accounts by this appellant in four cases. Since the trial court has not accepted the case of the prosecution with regard to three and has only accepted the case of the prosecution with regard to falsification of account of one Sri Radha Kanta Panda (P.W.12), the facts concerning those three cases are not required to be stated here not only because the learned counsel for the respondent has not touched those three cases during hearing but also in his written submission he has clearly indicated that narrow campus of the appeal with regard to the factum of falsification of account relating to Radha Kanta Panda (P.W.12).