Back
1981 Supreme(Ori) 99
ORISSA HIGH COURT
J. K. MOHANTY, J.
RASANANDA PATRA
VERSUS
STATE
Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1979,
Decided on : 1 -10 -1981.
The validity of a sanction order, the sufficiency of evidence to prove acceptance of bribes and habitual acceptance of bribes, and the modification of sentence in a case involving a public servant convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SANCTION - VALIDITY - FACTS CONSTITUTING OFFENCE - PROOF - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - PROOF - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - HABITUAL ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - PROOF - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - SENTENCE - MODIFICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a public servant, was convicted under Sections 161, IPC, and 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting bribes and habitually accepting gratification. He challenged the validity of the sanction, the sufficiency of evidence to prove acceptance of bribes, and the habitual acceptance of bribes, and sought modification of the sentence.
Finding of the Court:
1. The sanction order was valid as it was given in respect of the facts constituting the offence and the sanctioning authority was fully appraised of the facts and circumstances constituting the offence. 2. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accepted bribes from various individuals as a motive or reward for doing official acts or showing favor. 3. The prosecution also proved that the appellant habitually accepted or obtained gratification from different persons for himself as a motive or reward for doing official acts or showing favor to any person or rendering services to any person in the exercise of his official function.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction order was valid. 2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accepted bribes. 3. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellant habitually accepted or obtained gratification from different persons for himself as a motive or reward for doing official acts or showing favor to any person or rendering services to any person in the exercise of his official function. 4. Whether the sentence should be modified.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A sanction order is valid if it is given in respect of the facts constituting the offence and the sanctioning authority is fully appraised of the facts and circumstances constituting the offense. 2. Acceptance of bribes can be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence, and the recovery of bribe money. 3. Habitual acceptance or obtaining of gratification can be proved by evidence of multiple instances of such conduct, including the testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence, and the recovery of gratification money.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed subject to the modification of the sentence. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default, under Section 161, IPC. No separate sentence was imposed under Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
JUDGEMENT
1. Appellant has been convicted by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur under S.161, I.P.C. and under Ss. 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) read with S.5(2) of the Prevention or Corruption Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and has been sentenced to R.I. for one year on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows :- The accused-appellant being a public servant employed as Upper Division Clerk and posted as Bench Clerk to the Additional Tahsildar in Cuttack Sadar Tahasil obtained Rupees 100/- from Krushna alias Kusei Barik of Sankarpur (PW 11) on 26-6-1969 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for showing favour to him by getting an order passed in his favour by the Tahsildar on his petition for review of the order passed in Misc. Case No. 6/66 in favour of Raghunath Rout in exercise of his official function and thereby committed an offence under S.161, I.P.C. It was further alleged that during the period from December 1968 to September 1969 the accused-appellant being a, public servant and in the same capacity as Bench Clerk to the Addl, Tahasildar in Cuttack Sadar Tahasil habitually accepted/obtained gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward from Indramani Sahu of Choudwar (PW 6) an amount of Rs. 70/- on 31-12-1968 for issuing a vesting patta; from Golak Chandra Lenka of Mukundapur (PW 9) an amount of Rs. 43/- and Kangali Maharana of Kathagara Sahi, Cuttack (PW 7) an amount of Rupees 35/- on 20-2-1969 to show official favour to them on their petition made under S.8(1) of O.E.A. Act; from Duryodhan Maharana of Choudwar an amount of Rs. 3/- in June, 1969 for issuing copy of rent roll; and from Krushna alias Kusei Bank an amount of Rs. 100/- on 26-9-1969 by abusing his position a public servant and thereby committed offences under S.5(1)(a) and 5(1)(d) read with S.5 (2) of the Act.
3. To prove the case prosecution examined 16 PWs and produced a large number of documents. Defence examined two witnesses and also produced several documents. The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. Mr. Mohanty learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the sanction accorded in this case is not a proper sanction and the conviction on that ground is bound to be set aside; that the acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration from Krushna @ Kusei Barik of Sankarpur has not been proved by reliable evidence and by that date i.e., 26-9-1969 (on which date the alleged bribe was taken) the review application in Misc. Case No. 6/66 had already been disposed of and there was no question of showing favour to anybody; that the appellant had no knowledge in the matter and was not dealing with the file (Misc. Case No. 6/66); that the allegation that the appellant was habitually accepting or obtaining gratification other than legal remuneration from different persons has not been proved by clear and cogent evidence; and that in any view of the matter the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
4. Regarding the first contention Mr. Mohanty submitted that the sanction (Ext. 38) is not a valid sanction. There is no evidence to show what materials were produced before the Collector and District Magistrate who is the competent authority to accord sanction. There is clear absence of reference as to what materials were placed before the sanctioning authority on the basis of which the sanction has been accorded. He further submitted that P.W. 16, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vigilance, who is the Investigating Officer has stated that he sent the written report to the S.P. which the S. P. forwarded to A.D.M, for according sanction. He had not personally met the A. D. M. and till the submission of chargesheet all the records of investigation were with him. From the above Mr. Mohanty argued that no records were produced before the sanctioning Authority, Neither the order of sanction nor the e
