While conviction for criminal misconduct by a public servant is justified upon proof of unexplained property shortfall, a court may exercise discretionary power to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum for special reasons, such as the advanced age of the convict and extreme case delay.

S.S. Mishra, J. The sole appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. No.16 of 1988 (arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.11/82), whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under Sections 409 and 467 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant has also been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months for the offence under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The present appeal is pending since 1994. When the matter was taken up for hearing repeatedly, none appeared for the appellant. Therefore, on 02.09.2025, this Court appointed Mr. Pranay Kumar Maharaj as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter.

3. Heard Mr. Pranay Kumar Maharaj, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. M.S. Rizvi, the learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent-State (Vigilance Department).

4. The prosecution case is that in the year 1980, the accused-appellant was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Block Office of Dhamanagar. One Shyamasundar Sahu, who was attached to Dhamanagar Block as Co-operative Extension Officer, was in charge of the Block Development Officer, Dhamanagar Block from 23.07.1980 to 08.10.1980. During the years 1979 and 1980, rice and wheat were brought to the Block for supply of the same to the contractors under the Scheme of State of Orissa “Food for work”. As per the order of the Block Development Officer, Dhamanagar, the accused took charge of the stock of wheat and rice from Mr. P.C. Hati, V.L.W. attached to that Block on 03.06.1980. The accused took charge of 128 quintals and 77 kg. of wheat. On the same day, i.e., on 03.06.1980, the accused took charge of 706 quintals of rice from Mr. P.C. Hati. Both Mr. Hati and accused made necessary endorsement by putting their signatures in the Register of grains maintained in the Block Office showing giving charge of the aforesaid quantity of rice and wheat by Mr. P.C. Hati to the accused on 03.06.1980. Subsequently, in the month of September, 1980, the Block Development Officer came to know that the accused had not supplied rice to the concerned contractors, though necessary orders were passed for supply of rice to them for the work executed by them on the written complaint of three contractors, namely, Baistnab Charan Sahu (P.W.1), Bipin Behari Mohanty (P.W.6) and Subash Chandra Naik. So, the B.D.O. directed for physical verification of the stock.

Accordingly on 20.09.1980, physical verification of the stock of the grain was made in presence of the accused, N.C. Das, Sub-Assistant Engineer and Sekh Abdul Sutar (P.W.4), Head Clerk of the Block Office and during physical verification, it was found that there were 634 bags of rice and 13-1/2 bags of wheat available in the stock. After the physical verification, necessary endorsement was made in the Stock Register and the accused Kanhu Charan D