FAYAZ ALI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, namely Fayaz Ali faced the trial on the charges under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, herein after referred to 'P.C. Act') before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi (Dist.) for having criminally misconducted himself by possessing disproportionate assets beyond his known source of income wherein, the learned court found him guilty in the offences charged as above, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years for the offence under 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act and to pay a fine of ?25,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 6 (six) months more.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that Ch. Hrudayananda served as the Inspector of Police (Vigilance) for the Bhawanipatna Unit in the year 2001, while the Accused-Appellant, Fayaz Ali, held the position of Junior Engineer at R.W.S.S., Bhawanipatna, within the Kalahandi district. Upon receiving information from a reliable source regarding the present Appellant's possession of disproportionate assets, the complainant (Inspector, Vigilance) initiated an enquiry. It was revealed during the investigation that the Appellant originally hailed from Madhya Pradesh. His father, a retired mechanic from the P.H. Division in Bhawanipatna, owned only a dwelling house in the area. The Appellant's siblings were married and residing separately, and his parents were also living apart from him. The Appellant got engaged as a Junior Engineer in the P.H. Division, Bhawanipatna, on an ad-hoc basis in October 1985, his service was confirmed in 1988. He was later posted to the Lift Irrigation Division, Bhawanipatna. Subsequently, he joined the R.W.S.S. Department as a Junior Engineer in 1991. He married Anis Begum in 1987 and had two sons and a daughter, all attending English medium schools in Bhawanipatna during the period of scrutiny, from January 1, 1998, to June 27, 2001, as determined by the prosecution. Despite not receiving significant gifts from his father-in-law during the marriage, Fayaz Ali, during his position until relatively short tenure of service, acquired a solidly built house in Paradesipada, Bhawanipatna, and several house plots in Bhawanipatna Town. He also donated heavily to secure a shopping complex under his wife's name under the Bhawanipatna Municipality. Additionally, he possessed valuable household items and maintained substantial bank deposits. On June 27, 2001, the Vigilance Police, Bhawanipatna, conducted searches at the Appellant's office, government quarters, and his father's residence in P.H.E.D. Colony, Bhawanipatna, under warrants issued by the C.J.M., Berhampur, to ascertain details of his assets. The search revealed that the majority of his assets were acquired between January 1998 and June 27, 2001, prompting the prosecution to fix this period for scrutiny. During this period, the Appellant accumulated assets totaling to ?2,45,627/-, whereas his legal income amounted to ?2,29,880/-. The expenditure incurred by the Appellant and his family during this period exceeded his legal income resulting in a belief that the excess amount was unlawfully obtained income. In total, the Appellant possessed disproportionate assets amounting to ?2,67,899/- during the check period. The Appellant failed to justify the possession of assets disproportionate to his known income, thereby constituting criminal misconduct as a public servant, punishable under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, Ch. Hrudayananda, the then Inspector of Police (Vigilance) for the Bhawanipatna Unit, submitted a report against Fayaz Ali to the S.P., Vigilance, Berhampur, leading to the registration of Vigilance Case No. 35 of 2001. Upon registration, the S.P. directed the Inspector of Police (Vigilance), Bhawanipatna Unit, to investigate the case.

(3.) In the course of investigation, the investigating officer (I.O.) conducted a house search of the Appellant at Ramsagarpada, where he discovered various articles and prepared seizure list vide Ext. 1. He searched another house located at the backside of the D.I. of School, Bhawanipatna, and compiled a list of the articles found. The valuation of the articles listed in the inventory belonged to the Appellant, along with the year of acquisition. Moreover, he gathered information from the L.I.C. office regarding deposits, electricity expenses, telephone expenses, and educational expenses from educational institutions. In his capacity as the investigating officer, he also collected salary particulars of the Appellant. Upon obtaining the income and expenditure particulars from the Appellant during the final stages of the investigation, he determined the disproportionate asset to be ?2,52,152/-. Subsequently, he submitted the entire case record to the sanctioning authority for approval and engaged in a pre-sanction discussion with the sanctioning authority, who, after careful consideration, granted sanction for the prosecution of the Appellant. Furthermore, the I.O. conducted a statistical survey of the Appellant's usual expenses with the assistance of a statistician and submitted a report. After receiving the sanction order, he reviewed the case record and confirmed that the Appellant possessed disproportionate assets, and hence, submitted the charge sheet.