PRAHALLAD SETHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has been convicted by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur-Ganjam in G. R. Case No. 57 of 1997 (T. R. No. 54 of 1999) for having committed offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 465 and 477A of I.P.C. Accordingly, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo R.I for six months for offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC Act 1988; to undergo R.I. for a period of six months under Section 465, I.P.C, and R.I. for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/ - in default to undergo R.I. for three months for offence under Sec. 477A of I.P.C. respectively with the stipulation that all the sentences are to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the same, he has preferred this appeal challenging the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed consequent thereto.

(2.) Prosecution case is that the appellant was working as Sub-Collector, Phulbani with effect from 30-9-1996 and he was then also the Administrator of the Notified Area Council of Phulbani from 30-9-1996 to 19-7-1997. It is stated that during this period when the appellant was the Administrator of Phulbani, NAC, he had leased out Badabandha tank to one Prafulla Kumar Choudhury for pisciculture for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- for a period of five year 1997-98 to 2001-02. This action of the appellant is said to be in violation of provision of Section 127 of the Odisha Municipal Act 1950 as it has been so leased out without due auction. It is also said that the appellant was having no authority under the Act to lease out any tank for more than three years and he had so leased out the tank for a lesser amount showing undue favour to Sri Choudhury resulting in pecuniary loss to the local body and to the advantage and for gain of that Sri. Choudhury.

(3.) On 12-11-1997 Inspector of Police (Vigilance), Phulbani lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Berhampur division with above allegations. So necessary case was registered and investigation was taken up. Finally on completion of the same charge-sheet was placed against the appellant for commission of alleged offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the PC. Act and Sections 465, 466 and 477 of I.P.C. Accordingly, charges were framed against the appellant for the above offences and the trial commenced.