RAJIB LOCHAN PRADHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year by the Special Judge, Vigilance Sambalpur. He has also been found guilty Under Sections 467 and 477 -A, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) IT is alleged by the prosecution that while the Appellant was employed in the Revenue Department, in the capacity of a public servant i.e. Nazir under the Tahasildar of Bargarh, on 30 -8 -1975 dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted for his own use a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - entrusted to him. He also forged some receipts and cash book purporting to be a valuable security with intent to fraudulently misappropriate government money. He also falsified the cash book and the receipt book with intent to defraud and misappropriate government money. The Appellant took the plea of denial. To prove the case, prosecution examined seven witnesses and defence examined one. The learned Special Judge, after considering the evidence on record, by his judgment dated 10 -3 -1980 convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned above.

(3.) IN this case the sanction order dated 22 -12 -1977, signed by Shri S.B. Misra, the then District Magistrate and Collector, Sambalpur, has been marked as Ext. 19. Ext. 19 on the face of it shows that the Collector has examined the relevant records etc. and accorded sanction. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the sanction order has been given by the Collector after carefully examining the materials placed before him in regard to the allegations and finding that a prima facie case has been made out against the Appellant. He relied on the decisions reported in Sivraj Singh v. Delhi Administration. He further submitted that in this case the accused has admitted that he has temporarily misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - by his letter Ext. 12, the report submitted to the Tahasildar. Bargarh.