BALARAM SWAIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code' for short) for quashing the charges framed against the petitioner under S.5(1)(c) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and under S.409 read with S.109 of the Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C. for short).

(2.) The relevant facts may be stated in a nutshell. Accused Sudhir Chandra Misra was the District Veterinary Officer, accused Ajodya Prasad Misra was the Head Clerk and the petitioner Balaram Swain was the Accountant in the District Veterinary Office, Bolangir in the year 1967. On 31-3-67 accused Sudhir Chandra Misra in his Official capacity drew a sum of Rs. 27,187.86 by presenting bill No. 427 in the local Treasury. On 15-5-67 the petitioner took an amount of Rs. 2360/- therefrom for payment of costs of transportation of furniture and presented a Kutcha unstamped receipt. The furniture were in fact trasported by Government vehicle. The petitioner did not spend the amount of Rs. 2,360/- for the purpose for which he had taken the same. The above fact came to light when an Auditor audited the books of accounts of the District Veterinary Office, Bolangir for the period 1966-67 and 1967-68 from 14-8-73 to 17-11-73 and submitted audit report No. 10 of 1973-74. On the basis of his report F.I.R. was lodged on 18-3-75 and investigation commenced. After close of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 26-11-80 against the above named three persons in T. R. Case No. 19 of 1980 of the Court of the learned Special Judge, Sambalpur.

(3.) At the time of framing charges it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 3851.60 on 15-5-67 on the basis of audit report No. 10 of 1973-74 he was convicted and sentenced for offences under S.5(1)(c) read with S.5(2) of the Act and under Ss. 409 and 477-A, I.P.C. by the learned Special Judge in T.R. Case No. 7 of 1975, which order, was confirmed by the High Court and the matter is now pending in the Supreme Court in appeal. The petitioner could have been prosecuted for the alleged misappropriation of the sum of Rs. 2360/- on 15-5-67 which came to light by audit report No. 10 of 1973-74 in the earlier T.R. Case No. 7 of 1975. But instead of prosecuting him earlier and although F.I.R. was lodged as early as 18-3-1975, charge-sheet was submitted against him on 26-11-80. Therefore, he was prosecuted for an alleged offence committed about 14 years ago which was unjust and improper. The case was covered by S.300 of the Code and so he could not be prosecuted for the second time. On behalf of the prosecution it was pointed out that on the alleged date of misapproriation namely, 15-5-67 there was two entries. The case which ended in conviction of the petitioner related to misappropriation of Rs. 3,851.60 and this case related to the alleged misappropriation of Rs. 2360/-. So, in respect of two entries in the books of accounts, the petitioner committed two distinct offences and so he was liable to be prosecuted separately for each distinct offence. Accordingly S.300 of the Code was not a bar to the prosecution of the petitioner.