MAHESWAR SETH Vs. REPUBLIC OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Maheswar Seth faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (C.B.I.), Bhubaneswar in T.R. No. 04 of 2004 for offences punishable under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 13(1)(C) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the accusation that during the period of 2001-2002, he being a public servant and working as a store keeper, Regional Store, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Lakhanpur area, Bandhabahal in the district of Jharsuguda and in such capacity being entrusted with the electrical items of MCL worth of Rs.6,15,165/- and having dominion over such property, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of such property and dishonestly misappropriated the same.

(2.) The prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ext.11) dated 23.05.2003 lodged by Sri P. Lal, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, SPE, Bhubaneswar is that he received reliable information that the appellant was functioning as a store keeper, Regional Store, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Lakhanpur area, Bandhabahal in the district of Jharsuguda during the year 2001-02 and was in charge of electrical section of the store and he was receiving the goods from the suppliers after inspection by competent authority and use to make necessary entries in the Kardex of the said item and issuing the same on getting indents with the orders of Depot Officer after making necessary entries in the respective Kardex. During the stock verification of electrical section of the store in June 2002, shortage was found in the ground balance in respect of eleven numbers of items, cost of which is approximately Rs.6,15,165/-. The Depot Officer of Regional Store, Belpahar vide letter dated 11.06.2002 directed the appellant for stock verification of his section along with Chief store keeper of Lakhanpur area and to submit the list of missing items, if any. In response to the aforesaid direction, joint stock verification was conducted during which eleven items were found short of the actual balance. The appellant being the store keeper was accountable for the same and he could not give any satisfactory explanation for the shortage.

(3.) The defence plea of the appellant is that he was on casual leave from 06.05.2002 to 14.05.2002 and one Upendra Prasad Nayak was in charge of the store during the relevant time in his absence and the said Upendra Prasad Nayak also faced the proceeding. Bijaya Pati was another store keeper and Bhagirathi Nayak was also in charge of the store. It is further pleaded that he has not misappropriated any electrical items.