The prosecution of a former public servant for offenses committed while in office does not require previous sanction under section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act if the prosecution is initiated after the person ceases to be a public servant.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Mohanti, J. - Appellant a Deputy Forest Ranger has been convicted under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 477-A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a further period of months for the offence under section 5(1)(c) read with section 5(2) of the Act. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently.

2. In the year 1970, while the appellant was posted as Deputy Ranger in Debagiri Forest Range under Parlakhemundi Forest Division, he used to be entrusted with cash from time to time for departmental work in the Forest within his Range. It was alleged that although the appellant had drawn and shown to have spent an amount of Rs. 675/- for collection, conversion and stacking of timbers in Allamanda Reserve Forest, he did not actually spend the amount for the aforesaid purposes, but mis-appropriated the same and submitted false voucher (Ext. 11) and measurement-book (Ext. 10) and made false entry in the cash-book (Ext. 12). On receipt of confidential information about the mis-appropriation, p.w. 1, the Vigilance Inspector lodged F.I.R. (Ext. 1) before the S.P., Vigilance, Southern Division, Berhampur, who directed the officer-in-charge of the Vigilance Police Station to register a case and p.w. 19, the Vigilance Inspector to take up investigation. P.w. 19 did the bulk of the investigation and on his transfer his successor (p.w. 17) took over charge of the investigation and in due course submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.

3. The appellant admitted to have been entrusted with the sum of Rs. 675/- for departmental work, but contended that he had spent the same by getting the work done through his Peon Khageswar Tripathy (p.w. 5). His further contention was that he got the work done in Allaida Reserve Forest but not in Allamanda Reserve Forest. According to him, the sum of Rs. 675/- was actually spent in felling, dragging and stacking of timbers of Allaida Reserve Forest. He himself paid about half of the amount direct to the labourers whereas the other half was received from him by p.w. 5, who had spent the amount and verbally reported to him about the completion of work. The appellant checked the work at the spot and corrected the word 'Allaida' in the measurement book (Ext. 10) by scoring through 'Allamanda'. He sent a detailed report to the office as the measurement book did not contain the details. After completion of work, he asked p.w. 6, the Forester to prepare the voucher and accordingly, he prepared the voucher (Ext. 11) which was signed by the appellant in good faith. He denied the allegation that Exts. 10 and 11 were prepared by p.w. 6 to his dictation. He further contended that the voucher Ext. 11 contained the revenue stamp and the signature of the payee Patiki Soura before it was put up for his signature. He alleged that p.ws. 6 and 13 had given false evidence against him out of previous grudge.

4. The order of conviction is based mainly on the evidence of p.ws. 2, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 18 and the documents Exts. 10, 11, 12, 8, 9, 13, 14, 23 and 28.

5. It is not disputed that the appellant was entrusted with the sum of Rs. 675/- along with other cash for departmental work in the forest. This is clearly established by the evidence of p.w. 14, the Head Clerk of the office of the D.F.O., Parla-khemundi. It is also not disputed that the sum of Rs. 675/- has been shown to have been spent and accounted for in the cash book-Ext. 12. A heavy onus, therefore, lay on the appellant to prove that he had actually spent the amount and that the voucher, measurement book and the cash book entry are genuine.

6. Under Article 13 of the Orissa Forest Department Code, 1941, a Range Officer is responsible for all expenditures incurred within his range in respect of every departmental work done through