B K KUTTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant stool charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 512) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) and Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code) in the court of the Special Judge, Sambalpur, as follows: First-That you B.K. Kutty being a public servant i.e. in the capacity of a Steno to R.T.O., Sundargarh in December, 1972, dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or converted to your own use a sum of Rs. 325/- by forging the R.C. Book of car No. O.R.D. 5328 and by putting a false R.C. No. 1034 dated 10-11-72, which sum was entrusted to you in the said capacity, which was under your control by one Kundanlal of old Station, Rourkela towards the tax of his said car and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and within my cognizance. Second-That you B.K. Kutty during the same time and place, being the Steno to R.T.O., Sundargarh, forged certain documents purporting to be a valuable security i.e. the R.C. Book of car No. O.R.O. 5328 by incorporating false entries therein and by putting a false and fabricated signature and seal of the R.T.O., Sundargarh with intent to misappropriate a sum of Rs. 325/- and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

(2.) To bring home the charges to the appellant, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses of whom P.W. 1 was the person who had allegedly entrusted the amount of Rs. 325.00 with the appellant. P.W. 2, an employee of the office of the Regional Transport Officer at Rourkela, had proved Ext. 1, the cheet containing the seal of the Taxing Officer, Rourkela. P.W. 7 was the Regional Transport Officer at Sundargarh at the relevant time. P.W. 3 had examined the disputed signatures and seal with the specimen and admitted signatures and writings of the appellant and P.W. 7. The case of forgery had been based on his opinion. P.Ws. 4 to 6 and 8 had investigated into the case. P.W. 4 was the Inspector of Vigilance who had obtained the order I of sanction and submitted the charge-sheet.

(3.) The appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charges and according to him, all the allegations made against him were false. He had not examined any witness in his defence.