LOKANATH Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charges framed against the appellant were that while he was employed in the Civil Supplies Office at Rourkela in the district of Sundargarh as Assistant Civil Supplies Officer, he accepted or obtained a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on March 19, 1977 from some dealers in essential commodities as a motive or reward for doing or for bearing to do an official act, viz., to return the records of their respective control shops which had been token by him and thereby committed an offence punishable tinder section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (to be referred to hereinafter as the Act), had obtained in that capacity, by corrupt and illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 200/- for himself from Niranjan Khemka on March 28, 1977 and thus committed an offence punishable under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Act and that by receiving this gratification of Rs. 200/-, he had also committed an offence punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the Code). To bring home the charges to the appellant, the prosecution had examined twelve witnesses. The plea of the appellant was one of denial and false implication. He had examined one witness in his defence.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence, the learned Special Judge has found the appellant to be guilty of all the charges. For his conviction under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(a) of the Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for It further period of three months. In respect of his conviction under section 5(2) read with section 5(1)(d) of the Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section 161 of the Code. The learned trial Judge has made an order that the sentences would run concurrently, whereby he has evidently meant that the substantive terms of imprisonment would run concurrently because the terms of imprisonment which an accused is required to undergo in default of payment of fines are not to run concurrently with the substantive terms of imprisonment The appellant has assailed the order of conviction in respect of all the charges as illegal and unfounded.

(3.) Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Mund has token me through the evidence and has submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish any of the charges against the appellant and the trial court went wrong in basing his conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplices who, on their own showing, were bribe givers and stood self condemned, apart from the fact that their evidence, by itself was unworthy of credence. Mr. D.P. Sahoo, the learned Standing Counsel, has supported the order of conviction in respect of all the charges.