IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed the conviction of a Junior Engineer for misappropriating public property, emphasizing the lack of credible evidence for accidental loss and the presence of dishonest intention.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the CBI.

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 03.03.2012 passed by learned Spl. Judge-I, CBI/ACB/ AHD, Ranchi, in R.C. Case No.05(A)/1997 (R) whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 409 IPC and under Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short be called as P.C. Act).

2. The gravamen of allegation against the appellant is that being the Junior Engineer, RCD Division, Jamshedpur on 31.07.1991, he was entrusted with bitumen and when he handed-over the charge on 03.09.1993, it was found that there was a short-fall of bitumen and he had misappropriated total 132.046 MT of bitumen and 0.372 MT of 25 mm dia rod worth several crores rupees by abusing his official position.

3. Initially, Seraikella P.S. Case No.52 of 1996 was registered on 03.09.1996 on the written report lodged by the Executive Engineer, RCD. Later on investigation was taken over by the CBI and Case No.RC-5(A)/1997-RAN. was registered on the order dated 20.02.1997 in CWJC No.10417 of 1996.

4. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant and he was put on trial. Altogether 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and Exhibits-1 to 18 were adduced into evidence.

5. Learned Trial Court recorded a finding that 91.671 MT of bitumen was drained out and 0.322 MT of dia rod of 25 mm got mixed/melted in the soil was not tenable. The appellant was held to be guilty of committing breach of trust and under the P.C. Act and the judgment of conviction and sentence was delivered against him.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as per the charge report of bitumen and cement, which was given by the appellant to his successor, Mahesh Singh on 30.09.1993(Exhibit-3/2). In the said charge report, it has been specifically mentioned that 282.469 MT of bitumen was handed-over whereas 40.393 MT had drained out from the drums on earth.

7. Another charge report of bitumen and cement of Kandra Section has also been marked as Exhibit -3/1 wherein 108.124 MT of packed bitumen was handed-over to successor, Mahesh Singh on 30.09.1993. In this report also, in the remarks column, it has been noted that 19.730 MT had drained out and had mixed with earth. By making reference to the charge reports, the main defence of the appellant is that the packed bitumen was lying unattended in open and the drums had got damaged and as such, bitumen had drained out.

8. This will be evident from the deposition of the successor, Mahesh Singh (PW-3) in Para-3 wherein he has deposed that he had received the charge of 282.469 MT of packed bitumen. It had been mentioned in the charge report by his predecessor, that there was 322.862 MT of bitumen, out of which 40.393 MT of packed bitumen was said by him to have drained out and got mixed with earth. He had verified with the stock with the assistance of Yugal Kishore Kumbhkar and Dharia Oraon. In para-4, he has stated about the charge report regarding Kandra Section that he had taken charge of 23.240 MT and it was written in the charge report that 19.730 MT had drained out and got mixed with the earth. In Para-7, he has deposed that the appellant had a stock of total 414.533 MT of packed bitumen out of which he had handed-over the charge of 282.469 MT resulting in shortfall of 91.671 MT of bitumen.

9. Specific reference is made to Exhibit-11 which is a forwarding letter being Letter No.883 dated 06.08.1998 addressed to the S.P., CBI by the Executive Engineer, RCD Division, Jamshedpur. The inspection report was submitted by Noor Hasan Khan-Assistant Engineer, Sri Kumar Amrendra Narayan Singh-Junior Engineer and Sri Mahesh Singh-the then Junior Engineer. In the said report annexed with the letter and marked as Exhibit-11/1, it has been mentioned that on inspection being conducted on