IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed criminal breach of trust and had dishonest intention to misappropriate public property.

JUDGMENT :

(Marli Vankung, J.)

Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondents and Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Mizoram Lokayukta.

2. This is an appeal filed against the Judgment Order dated 04.09.2023,passed by the Court of Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Aizawl, Mizoram in ACB PS Case No. 001 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022, convicting the appellant under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (a) and (b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (2018 Amendment) and u/s Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the sentence order dated 05.09.2023, sentencing him to undergo two (2) years imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default another imprisonment of six (6) months under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imprisonment for four (4) years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) in default another imprisonment of six (6) months under Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (2018 Amendment). Both of the terms sentence, except fine, are to run concurrently.

3. Brief facts of the case is that on dated 20.05.2020, Sh. H. Thanga Zate, Deputy Secretary, Public Works Department, Mizoram submitted First Information Report (herein after referred to as “FIR”) to the Chairperson, Mizoram Lokayukta to investigate an alleged illegal money taken by the Accused/ Appellant from Contractors while he was posted at Khawzawl Division, Mizoram. The Chairperson, Mizoram Lokayukta thereafter directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred to as “ACB”) to conduct preliminary enquiry vide letter dated 02.06.2020 bearing No. C.13017/16/2020-ML. On receipt of the Lokayukta Order, the Superintendent of Police, ACB, registered preliminary enquiry No. P.E (LOK) No. 3 of 2020 dated 19.06.2020 after obtaining approval from the Chief Vigilance Officer, Aizawl, Mizoram. The Superintendent of Police, ACB thereafter entrusted the present Respondent No. 2 for investigation. During preliminary enquiry, the Respondent No. 2 found that one Sh. Lalroenga, R/o Republic Veng, Aizawl was appointed to construct Rabung to Aizawl Road, MZ02 104 (0.00 - 2.96 KMP) and routing maintenance for five (5) years after completion of construction under PMGSY. In this connection, Agreement No. 10/MIRRDA/2018-19 dt. 05.09.2018 vide letter No. B.15028/240/2019/PRX/13/PMGSY/EC/PWD dated 20.09.2018 was also executed. The said preliminary enquiry also allegedly revealed that the accused/appellant while holding the post of JE, PWD at Khawzawl Division had allegedly demanded illegal money from the abovementioned appointed Contractor namely Sh. Lalroenga amounting to Rs. 17,00,000/(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) and Rs. 3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs only) from one Sh. Vanhmingthanga, S/o Zothankunga (L), R/o Khawzawl Vengthar who was working under Contractor Sh. Lalroenga as a Sub —Contractor. That as the allegations were deemed to be substantiated, the Respondent No. 2 submitted FIR to the Superintendent of Police, ACB with a request to register a case against the accused/appellant. Accordingly, ACB PS Case No. 01 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022 under Section 409 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 r/w 13 (1) (a) (b) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (2018 Amendment) was registered against the accused/appellant.

4. That pursuant to registering ACB PS Case No. 01 of 2022 dated 28.02.2022 against the accused/appellant, prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (2018 Amendment) (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”) was accorded by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, PWD vide Order dated 04.11.2022 bearing memo No. C.14016/1/2020-PWD(E).

5. The Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act upon receipt of the case took cognizance of offence against the accused/appellant. Charges were framed against the accused/appellant under Section 409 of