Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Sachidananda Mishra - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha - Respondent
CRLA No. 14 of 2007
Decided On : 31-01-2022
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - FORGERY - USING FORGED DOCUMENT AS GENUINE - CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 114(G) - ADVERSE INFERENCE - STOCK REGISTER - SEIZURE - SECTION 409, 468, 471 OF IPC AND SECTION 13(2) READ WITH SECTION 13(1)(C) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Junior Horticulture Officer, was accused of misappropriating funds allocated for the purchase of banana suckers. The prosecution alleged that he forged vouchers and altered stock registers to cover up the misappropriation. The trial court convicted the appellant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court set aside the trial court's conviction. It held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had misappropriated any funds. The court noted that the prosecution had not seized the stock register, which would have shown whether the appellant had actually purchased the banana suckers. The court also found that the appellant's explanation for his actions was reasonable. The court further held that the appellant could not be convicted of forgery or using a forged document as genuine because the prosecution had failed to prove that the vouchers were forged.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved that the appellant had misappropriated any funds. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved that the vouchers were forged. 3. Whether the appellant's explanation for his actions was reasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution must prove that the accused had misappropriated funds entrusted to him or under his control. 2. The prosecution must prove that the document is a forged one and that the accused forged the document with the intention that it would be used for the purpose of cheating. 3. The accused's explanation for his actions must be considered along with other facts and circumstances appearing in the case.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
JUDGMENT
S.K. Sahoo, J. - The appellant Sachidananda Mishra faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Sambalpur in T.R. Case No.61 of 1995 for offences punishable under sections 409, 468, 471, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 1988 Act') on the accusation that he being employed as a Junior Horticulture Officer, Bolangir under the Government of Odisha and being a public servant abused his position as such, dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted a sum of Rs.19,047/- (rupees nineteen thousand forty seven only) entrusted to him or under his control or dominion to his own use and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and also forged certain vouchers intending that those would be used for the purpose of cheating and fraudulently or dishonestly used those documents as genuine and also altered certain Book Accounts Register with intent to defraud the employer Govt. of Odisha.
The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2006 though acquitted the appellant of the charge under section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code but found him guilty under sections 409, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of 1988 Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months on each count and the substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in short, as per the first information report (Ext.34) dated 05.11.1994 lodged by Sri Umesh Chandra Panda (P.W.19), Inspector of Vigilance, Bolangir before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur is that he received reliable information that the appellant who was the Junior Horticulture Officer in the Office of the Horticulturist, Khariar was posted at J.H.O., Bolangir from 29.08.1985 to 01.09.1992. During his incumbency as such, a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was allotted by the Director of Horticulture, Odisha, Bhubaneswar during the year 1991-92 and placed at the disposal of Horticulturist, Bolangir for purchase of 1,50,000 Dwarf Cavendish banana suckers from the farmers @ Rs.1/- per sucker and distribution of the same to the farmers at the highly subsidized rate of Rs.0.15 per sucker. The allotted amount of Rs.2,10,000/- included Rs.45,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- towards chemical pre-treatment of the banana suckers. The appellant was entrusted with Rs.47,310/- for purchase of suckers and transportation, out of the allotted amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. He purchased 27,200 banana suckers and paid a sum of Rs.23,200/- to the farmers those who had supplied the suckers but falsely showed purchase of 36,500 banana suckers from the farmers @ Rs.1/- per sucker and thereby misappropriated a sum of Rs.13,300/- by preparing false vouchers. He also showed expenditure of Rs.10,810/- towards transportation charges of the banana suckers thoug utilized Rs.5,062.40 paisa for that purpose and thus misappropriated the rest amount of Rs.5,747.60 paisa. In that process, the appellant misappropriated a total sum of Rs.19,047.60 paisa out of the entrusted amount of Rs.47,310/-. The enquiry revealed that the appellant prepared and manufactured false money receipts in the name of farmers and vehicle owners and used the same as genuine and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs.19,047.60 paisa obtaining pecuniary advantage for himself and thereby he misconduct himself.
Basing on such first information report lodged by P.W.19, Sambalpur Vig. P.S. Case No.42 of 1994 was registered under sections 467, 471, 409 of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of 1988 Act. On the direction of the S.P. Vigilance, Sambalpur, P.W.19 took up investigation of the case. During course of investigation, he examined wit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
