IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S. Muralidhar, Chittaranjan Dash, JJ.
Bharat Chandra Roul – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent
CRA No. 87 of 1995
Decided On : 26-09-2022
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - [SECTION 13(2)] - [SECTION 8(3)] - ORISSA SPECIAL COURTS ACT, 1990 - [SECTION 9] - Appellant, a public servant, was convicted for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He challenged the conviction and sentence on various grounds. The High Court, after re-assessing the evidence, found that the prosecution had successfully established that the Appellant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and that he had failed to satisfactorily explain the same. The Court also found that the Appellant's claim that he had received certain amounts as loan or gift was not supported by cogent evidence. The Court, however, reduced the sentence considering the Appellant's age and the delay in disposal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant, a public servant, was convicted for acquiring assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. He challenged the conviction and sentence on various grounds.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court, after re-assessing the evidence, found that the prosecution had successfully established that the Appellant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and that he had failed to satisfactorily explain the same. The Court also found that the Appellant's claim that he had received certain amounts as loan or gift was not supported by cogent evidence.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had successfully established that the Appellant had acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution has to establish that the pecuniary assets acquired by the public servant are disproportionately larger than his known sources of income and then it is for the public servant to account for such excess. The burden of proof regarding the first limb is on the prosecution whereas the onus is on the public servant to prove the second limb.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. However, it reduced the sentence considering the Appellant's age and the delay in disposal of the appeal.
JUDGMENT
Chittaranjan Dash, J. - This appeal under section 9 of the Orissa Special Courts Act,1990 arises from the Judgment and order dated 6th March 1995 passed in Special Court Case No.4 of 1993 of the Single Judge of this Court wherein the learned Single Judge having tried the offences against the Appellant under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (in short, the 'Act') read with Section 8(3) of the Orissa Special Courts Act,1990 (in short, the 'Special Act') held him guilty there under, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rupees Five lakhs (Rs.5,00,000/-), and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of eighteen months.
2. The case of the prosecution are that the Appellant while being engaged as employee of the government, being a public servant under section 2 (c) of the Act during the period between 12th June 1963 to 24th March 1990 acquired assets to the tune of Rs.8,03,395.08 which was disproportionate to his known source of income.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 24th March 1990 PW-11 Banabihari Nayak, Inspector of Police attached to Vigilance Directorate, Cuttack conducted raid in a house located at Aparna Nagar, Chauliaganj, Cuttack on the basis of search warrant (Ext.64) wherein the Appellant was residing with his family members. The raiding party comprised Yudhistir Ojha, the Executive Magistrate, Cuttack (PW-20), Ramesh Chandra Mohanty, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW-17) and others. Search was conducted in the house and various articles were seized as enumerated in the seizure list vide Ext.45.
4. The further case of the prosecution is that the valuation of different articles under Ext.45 was indicated on the basis of information given by the Appellant except the valuation of gold ornaments which was prepared as per the statement of goldsmith viz., Pramod Kumar Sahoo (PW-15) who was also present during the raid. Zima of the properties seized vide Ext.45 was given to the Appellant except certain documents.
5. On the very same day raid was also conducted in the office and official residence of the Appellant at Khurda by Nityananda Patnaik, Sub-Inspector of Police (Vigilance) (PW-1) in presence of others but in absence of the Appellant and the articles found were seized as per the seizure list vide Ext.19. The value of different articles enumerated under Ext.19 was reflected as per the version of witnesses present there. However, a steel Almirah that could not be opened during the search on that day was sealed and was opened on 26th March, 1990 and the articles found therein were seized vide seizure list, Ext.21. All the articles except Life Insurance Policies and one building plan were handed over in the zima of Udayanath Mahalik, the Watchman.
6. After the search, valuation was made of the seized articles and the disproportionate asset of the Appellant was worked out at Rs.5,20,610.00. The first information report vide Ext.46 was lodged before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance City, Cuttack and accordingly the case was registered.
7. After registration of the case, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Sri Radhamohan Patra, Inspector of Police, Vigilance, Cuttack (PW-26), who took up the investigation on 29th March, 1990.
8. The prosecution case further reveals that the valuation work of the buildings situated at Aparnanagar, Chauliaganj was undertaken from 11th June 1990 to 13th June 1990 by Sri Rabindra Nath Mohanty, the Asst. Engineer (PW-23) who was assisted by Kantha Behera, Building S.I., Vigilance Directorate (PW-2) and two valuation reports vide Exts.89 and 90 were submitted to PW-26. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer obtained sanction from the Competent Authority vide Ext.102 and charge sheet was submitted showing the Appellant to have acquired disproportionate assets to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.8,
Ashok Tshering Bhutia v. State of Sikkim 2011 CrLJ 1770
Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT: (1963) 50 ITR 1
Sahu Madho Das v. Mukand Ram AIR 1955 SC 481
The court reaffirmed the significance of lawful procedures in asset seizure under the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing the requirement for evidentiary clarity regarding asset ownership.
In a prosecution for the possession of disproportionate assets, once the prosecution proves the public servant's known sources of income and the value of assets found in their possession, the burden ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as the importance of accurate valuation of assets and properties....
The trial court erred in acquitting the respondents, as evidence depicted assets acquired disproportionately to known income sources under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a public servant possesses assets disproportionate to their known income.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.