BRAJA GOPAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has challenged the judgement passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar, convicting and sentencing him for offences under S.5(1)(c) and (d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and under Ss.467 and 471, I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant was serving as Motor Vehicles Inspector (Technical), a gazetted post and in the year 1975 he was posted at Baripada in Mayurbhanj district. On 19-8-1975 he was checking motor vehicles at a place called Asanjoda on the national highway. A passenger bus bearing Registration No. RJY 3091 of which P.W. 7 was the driver, P.W. 8 was the owner and P.W. 9 was the conductor, was travelling from Jhansi in Rajasthan carrying in all 62 pilgrims to Puri in Orissa although its seating capacity was 54. The vehicle was checked by the appellant who found that it was overloaded and so he realised a sum of Rs. 800/- as compounding fee from the driver and conductor (P.Ws. 7 and 9 respectively) and gave a receipt (Ext. 5) showing collection of the said amount. But by manipulating the carbon copy of the receipt (Ext. 5/1), he represented that a sum of Rs. 400/- only was realised from them and deposited the aforesaid amount of cash after return to the office at Baripada. Thereby, he made an illegal gain of Rs. 400/- to himself. The above action of the appellant would have gone unnoticed, but for a second check of the said vehicle at Puri by another Motor Vehicles Inspector. During check, the compounding receipt of Rs. 800/- (Ext. 5) was produced before him and for further verification he made correspondence with the Regional Transport Office at Baripada. It was then revealed that although compounding fee of Rs. 800/- had been realised the appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 400/- only in the office cash and had appropriated the balance Rs. 400/- by making interpolation of documents. The matter was reported to the Vigilance Police and after drawing up F.I.R. (Exts. 18 and 18/2), the case was investigated. After close of investigation, sanction for prosecution was obtained under S.6 of the Act and charge-sheet was submitted in Court.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was very simple. He admitted that on the relevant date he checked the passenger bus and as he found it to be overloaded, he demanded compounding fee of Rs. 800/- from the driver and conductor and accordingly wrote the receipt with a carbon copy. The conductor of the bus pleaded that he did not have Rs. 800/- with him and requested for payment of compounding fee of Rs. 400/-. After some insistence and hesitation, the appellant acceded to his request and charged compounding fee of Rs. 400/-, instead of Rs. 800/-, but as it was already late in the evening and other vehicles were waiting for check, due to haste and oversight, he forgot to correct the amount from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 400/- in the receipt (Ext.5) given to the conductor and allowed the vehicle to pass. He realised his mistake next day in the office when he deposited the compounding fee of Rs. 400/- for the passenger bus. He corrected the carbon copy of the receipt in order to show that a sum of Rs. 400/- had been realised as compounding fee from the passenger bus bearing Registration No. RJY 3091. He denied having appropriated a sum of Rs. 400/- for personal gain.