The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on uncorroborated testimony from a witness with questionable credibility is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.A. M.Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel and Mr. B. Bhagawati, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Public Prosecutor, for the State of Mizoram.

2. This appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the appellant Shri Rodney Lalrinawma Ralte, impugning the judgment and order dated 27.05.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Mizoram at Aizawl whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 13(1)(d) and was sentenced under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal are as follows:

i. On the basis of a preliminary inquiry which was registered as ACB Preliminary Inquiry No. 15/2012 dated 05.07.2012, an FIR was lodged against the present appellant, inter-alia, alleging that while functioning as Deputy Commissioner, Mamit, he had sanctioned Rs. 36,500/-for sitting allowance of members of DLIC stock. It is also alleged that the cashier had handed over the entire amount to the present appellant and though the amount has been showed as spent, the appellant had retained for himself Rs. 11,500/-which was undisbursed sitting allowance of 9 members of DLIC. It was further alleged in the FIR that Rs. 15.5 lakh was sanctioned under common fund for 10 different construction works of Andermanik village council and the same was shown to have been fully paid to the village councilin as per the cash book, however, the actual amount received by the village council was only Rs.7.5 lakh and the present appellant retained for himself rest of the money amounting to Rs. 8 lakh.

ii. The other allegation made in the FIR against the present appellant was that he misappropriated Rs.4lakh out of Rs.7lakh sanctioned for construction of side drain of Andermanik, and the person in whose favour the work order was issued received Rs.3 lakh only.

iii. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, an ACBPS Case No. 2/2013 under Sections 409/468/477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988was registered against the present appellant and Inspector F. Engkunga of Anti-Corruption Bureau was entrusted to conduct the investigation. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Sections 409/468/477A of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The appellant appeared before the court of learned Special Judge, Mizoram and faced the trial.

iv. On appearance of the appellant, the learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. When the said charges were read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

v. During the course of the trial, 26 numbers of witnesses including the Investigating Officer and about 48 documents were exhibited by the prosecution side to bring home the charges against the present applicant. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, during which he denied the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses and pleaded his innocence. The appellant also adduced defence evidence of himself as DW1. However, after considering the materials on record and after hearing both the sides, the learned Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 27.05.2019 which has been impugned in this instant appeal, has convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already described hereinabove.

4. Before considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, let us go through the ev