SESADEV NANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been convicted under Section 409, I. P. C, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - or in default to undergo further imprisonment for six months by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Puri, and on appeal, the said conviction and sentence have been affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, Puri.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case the petitioner was the Sarpanch of Uchhupur Grama Panchayat in the year 1976. In accordance with the resolution of the Panchayat to deal with the controlled commodities, the petitioner filed an application before the Block Development Officer to make arrangement for supply of controlled commodities to the Panchayat for distribution amongst the villagers. On 21.9.1976 the petitioner as the Sarpanch lifted 14 quintals of sugar from the Food Corporation of India in accordance with the orders of the Block Development Officer, Nimapara and the said stock was being kept by the petitioner in his office room and the petitioner was retaining the key of the said room. On 2.2.1976 the Panchayat Extension Officer (P.W.2.) visited the Panchayat and made a physical verification of the stock of sugar and found that in the stock only seven quintals of sugar in seven gunny bags was there He also inspected the Panchayat cash register and found that the value of the missing seven quintals of sugar amounting to Rs. 1,505/ - had not been deposited. As the petitioner could not give any account for the shortage of sugar, he reported the matter to the Block Development Officer who obtained necessary orders from the District Magistrate, Puri, for prosecuting the petitioner and then lodged the F. I. R. In course of investigation it was revealed that the sugar in question had not been sold to any of the consumers of the Panchayat and further on 30 -6 -1976, the petitioner had filed an application before the Block Development Officer to allow him to deposit the entire amount. After completion of the investigation the police submitted the charge -sheet against the petitioner in February, 1977.

(3.) IN support of the prosecution case, eight witnesses were examined and a large number of documents were produced. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the evidence and came to hold that the prosecution had been able to bring home the charge against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted him. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions judge re -appraised the evidence and affirmed the conclusion of the learned trying. Magistrate. Both the Courts below on consideration of the evidence came to hold that the prosecution had been able to establish the entrustment of sugar to the petitioner and it was the petitioner who was in custody of the sugar in question. So far as the shortage is concerned, it has also been found that the prosecution has been able to establish the shortage of seven quintals of sugar and the Courts below have rejected both the defence pleas. Since the entrustment has been proved and the accused could not explain as to the manner in which he dealt with the sugar in question, the offence of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of Section 409, I. P. C, has been held to be well -established.