JADABANDRA PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 61/75 is the same person who is Respondent in Government Appeal No. 77/75. He was charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for misappropriation of Rs. 6910.00 in cash and 49 bags of cement worth Rs. 41650 and for having pecuniary advantage of Rs. 7676.01 for himself and/or for one Sk. Kala by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing his official position.

(2.) PROSECUTION case is that the accused was the B.D.O. of Jajpur during the years 1962 to 1965. In March 1963, Government in the Community Development and Panchayat Raj Department issued a circular limiting the total estimated cost of construction of each Panchayat Samiti (Block) Office building to Rs. 29,000/ -. The construction of Jajpur Panchayat Samiti Office building was taken up in 1963 before its plan and estimated had been approved and administrative approval had been accorded. The accused entrusted the work to P.W. 5, a poor and landless man of Jajpur town, who had been enlisted as a 'D' class contractor and was entitled to take up work only to an extent of Rs. 10,000/ -. The accused did not call for tenders before entrusting the work to P.W. 5. The work was also not completed by P.W. 5 and he left in an incomplete stage. In course of this work, the accused paid Rs. 32,504.85 to P.W. 5 in several instalments as advance in the shape of cash or material, though the total cost of work executed by P.W. 5 was found to be only Rs. 24,828.84. Thus, it is alleged that the accused obtained a pecuniary advantage up to Rs. 7676 01 for P.W. 5 and/or for himself. Further, though the accused obtained 14 receipts from P.W. 5 for a total sum of Rs. 6910/ - and 5 receipts for 49 bags of cement valued at Rs. 416.50. yet actually he did not either pay the amount or handed over the cement to P.W. 5, but misappropriated the same. After a confidential inquiry charge -sheet was submitted. Defence plea is substantially one of denial. The specific plea of the accused is that at the end of the financial year 1962 -63, a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - in the Samiti P.L. account remained unspent. This account was likely to lapse if not spent by the end of March 1963. As there was no time to call for tenders to select a contractor and there was necessity to shift the Block Office and Godown to its own building, the same being located in a rented house at an exorbitant rent, and there was also pressure from higher levels to construct and complete the building soon, he entrusted the work to P.W. 5, a 'D' class contractor who was readily available and had the solvency certificate. This work was entrusted at job rate basis. As P.W. 5 continued to work, different amounts were advanced to him in anticipation that he would complete the work and the amounts advanced would be adjusted. But when the accused was transferred from Jajpur, his successors took no interest to get the building completed or to realise the excess amount from P.W. 5. His further plea is that the R.E.O. and the staff of his office had a grudge against him as he did not agree with them to delay the construction of the building and they got annoyed. The learned trial Court has acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Government Appeal No. 77/75 is directed against this order of acquittal. However, he has been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act for making advance to P.W. 5 a sum of Rs. 5,280.37, through the prosecution case is that he advanced Rs. 7,676.01 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -, in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of three months. Criminal Appeal No. 61/75 is directed against this order of conviction.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that accused was the B.D.O. of Jajpur during the relevant period. i.e. from 1962 to 1965. Let me take up the Government Appeal first. Government Appeal No. 77/75: