MUKTIKANTA MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Accused -Appellant was in Railway Service as a Ticket Collector. He faced charges under Sections 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for having committed criminal misconduct being a public servant as he was found in possession of pecuniary resources and properties in his name and in the name of his wife - Mohinibala Mishra, son and daughter to the extent of Rs. 59,865.03, which, according to the prosecution was disproportionate to his known source of income. He faced trial in T.R Case No. 3 of 1983 in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar and being found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default, to undergo S.I for a further period of four months. The said order of conviction and sentence is assailed in this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) AS would be evident from the F.I.R and other documents, the accused -Appellant was working in the Indian Railways and was holding the post of Train Ticket Examiner "C" and his initial pay was Rs. 55/ - but then that was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 380/ - per month. He hailed from a lower middle class family inasmuch as both his parents were Primary School Teachers and his father had inherited only Ac.5.000 of land. He had four brothers and as such the family was always hand to mouth. The accused -Appellant married Smt. Mohinibala in the year 1969 without much dowry. After receiving several complaints an investigation was made and it was found that during the check period i.e. from 16.2.1961 to 28.2.1977 the accused -Appellant had purchased Ac.0.56 decimals of land for Rs. 3,500/ - in the name of his wife and had constructed a double storied building conservatively estimated at Rs. 6,01,000/ -. He had also acquired another building at Barchana worth of Rs. 34,000/ - apart from Ac.2.000 of land in his village and two bullet motorcycles. He was also in possession of gold ornaments and other assets and was maintaining two Savings Bank Accounts in the name his wife and daughter. It was alleged that the entire salary drawn by the accused -Appellant during the check period was Rs. 35,000/ - but the assets both movable and immovable possessed by him were worth Rs. 1,05,667.55 which according to the prosecution indicated that the accused -Appellant was in possession of properties and pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income.

(3.) IN order to substantiate its case the prosecution got 24 witnesses examined and exhibited 61 documents. On the other hand the defence got four witnesses examined and exhibited a number of documents. After discussing the evidence in extenso the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused -Appellant was in possession of assets worth of Rs. 59,865.03 which were disproportionate to his known sources of income and that he had failed to account for satisfactorily the acquisition of the properties and pecuniary resources held or possessed by him. On the basis of such conclusion the learned Special Judge held the accused Appellant liable for under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and convicted and sentenced him thereunder.