ISWAR CHANDRA SETHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur convicting him under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more for the earlier offence and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the latter offence with a further direction that the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts leading to the prosecution case which are mostly indisputed are stated in brief. The appellant was serving as an Agriculture Sub -Overseer under the State Government and was posted at Baragarh. On 31 -3 -75, he took charge of the stock and store of oil seeds kept in the godown from his predecessor Kulamant Mishra. P.W. 4, the District Agriculture Officer ('D.A.O' in short) passed an order (Ext.) 6/1) on the application of one Dakhila Pradhan (Ext. 16) for sale to the appellant. Dakhila Pradhan purchased only 2 quintals of the stock and gave Ext. 3 in writing declining to purchase the remaining stock of 35 quintals of mustard seeds valued at Rs. 6,300/ -. There after, P.W. 4 by order (Ext. 4/1) directed the aforesaid stock to be sold by public auction. Accordingly, notice (Ext. 5) was issued fixing 18 -6 -1976 as the date of auction of 35 quintals of mustard seeds. On 18 -6 -1976, P. W. 3, the Agriculture supervisor, P.W. 5, the Assistant District Agriculture Officer accompanied by the appellant and two intending bidders (P.Ws. 7 and 8) came to the godown for verification of the stock. The appellant opened the godown doors and it was found that there was no stock of 35 quintals of mustard seeds. The fact of missing of 35 quintals of oil seeds from the godown was reported to P.W. 4 who called for an explanation of the appellant. The appellant submitted the explanation (Ext. 10) on consideration of which by two orders (Ext. 11/2 and 11/1) dated 9 -9 -1976, P.W. 4 directed recovery of the entire cost of 35 quintals of oil seeds at the rate of Rs. 180/ - per quintal from the appellant. In accordance with the aforesaid orders, some amounts were recovered from the appellant evidenced by receipts (Ext. 14 series). The Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) came to know the aforesaid facts and submitted a written report on 16 -12 -1976 (Ext. 21) which was treated as F.I.R. (Ext. 21/2). After close of investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the appellant.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge on the facts admitted by the appellant came to hold that the entrustment and criminal breach of trust were proved. He did not at all consider the appellant's defence supported by documentary evidence.