NRUSINGH CHARAN SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant being convicted in T.R.Case No.1 of 2014 (T.R. 50 of 2011) under Sec. 13 (2) read with Sec. 13 (1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 30 (thirty) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,00,000.00 (two lakhs), in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year in the judgment and order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, Special Court, Bhubaneswar has assailed the said judgment in the present appeal.

(2.) Prosecution case was that while the appellant was working as Deputy General Manager (Mining), Orissa Mining Corporation, Bhubaneswar, the Vigilance Department getting some information regarding accumulation of disproportionate assets by the accused-appellant conducted simultaneous search and raid in respect of the residential house, office, parental house and the house in occupation of the brothers of the appellant on 12.06.2007 on the strength of search warrant obtained from the learned Special C.J.M, Bhubaneswar. Pursuant to the materials and documents recovered in course of search, F.I.R was drawn up by the then Inspector, Vigilance Squad, Khurda on 22.12.2008 and Vigilance P.S. Case No. 50 of 2008 was registered under Sec. 13(2) read with Sec. (1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short, "P.C.Act") against the accused and the investigation was taken up by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar Division. The check period was taken from 01.01.1994 to 12.06.2007 for the purpose of investigation. In course of investigation, different witnesses were examined, relevant informations and documents were collected from different quarters and it was ultimately found out that the total income of the appellant during the check period was Rs. 30,16,708.00 from all known sources and he has made expenditure of Rs. 22,39,810.00, thus left with a surplus of Rs. 7,97,384.00. But, he was found to have acquired assets worth of Rs. 22,19,324.00 and hence, he was allegedly having disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 14,42,426.00. Accordingly, the charge sheet was placed against the accused appellant to face his trial in the court of law.

(3.) While denying the charge, the accused-appellant took the plea that the Investigating Agency has not taken into consideration all his income from different sources and has exaggerated the expenditure during the check period besides showing the value of the assets at an inflated rate by arbitrary computation.