MEGHANAD NAYAK Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.11.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 34 of 1989 convicting the accused - appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 5(1)(e) of the said Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of eighteen months.

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused-appellant while working in different capacities in the office of the Accountant General during the check period from 17.7.1971 to 16.4.1988 acquired property to the tune of Rs. 3,21,300/-, which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. According to the prosecution, during the aforesaid period of time, while the income of the appellant was Rs. 3,28,321.95 paise and his expenditure was Rs. 2,00,325.89 paise, his assets were found to be to the tune of Rs. 4,49,206.36 paise. Mr. P.N. Parida, the then Inspector of Police, Special Police Establishment, Orissa, Bhubaneswar on receiving reliable information lodged an F.I.R. on 15.4.1988 and on completion of investigation, the appellant was charge sheeted leading to the trial for the offence indicated above.

(3.) On evaluation of the evidence adduced by both the sides, learned trial Court arrived at the finding that during the check periods, the income of the appellant from the known sources was Rs. 3,51,671.95 paise inclusive of Rs. 22,840/- which had not been taken into account by the Investigating Agency and that the appellant had spent Rs. 2,00,325.89 paise on himself and family members with a saving of Rs. 1,51,346.06 paise, whereas, the property in his possession during the check period was estimated at Rs. 4,49,206.36 paise. The learned trial Court deducted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of the gift received by the appellant from Rs. 2,97,860.30 paise (Rs. 4,49,206.36 paise - Rs. 1,51,346.06 paise) and ultimately, held that the property valued at Rs. 2,47,860.30 paise in possession of the appellant was disproportionate to the known sources of his income.