State of Orissa vs Manohar Mishra

P.K. Tripathy, J.—Heard further argument and the judgment is as follows:

Respondent as accused No. 2. together with Sri Ramji Das and Jayasingh Bhoi as accused 1 and 3 faced trial in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur in T.R. Case No. 20 of 1984. According to the allegation of the prosecution, in the matter of procurement of paddy on behalf of the Government, accused Ramji Das as the Deputy Director of Agriculture, posted at Sambalpur, Manohar Mishra, a Senior Clerk posted at Paikmal were involved in procurement of paddy. Accused Jayasingh Bhoi was an outsider and acted as agent. In the process of procurement of paddy price was shown to be paid at the rate of 170/- or Rs. 175/- per quintal though rate of procurement was less than that and in that process the accused persons caused loss of Rs. 1462.83 paise to the Government and made wrongful gain of the same on the basis of fabricated documents, i.e., receipt and vouchers which were also entered in the books of account. For the said act, accused Ramji Das and Manohar Mishra were charged for the offence u/s 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act (in short the ''P.C. Act'') together with offence under Sections 420/468/471/477-A/120-B of the Indian Penal Code (in short the ''Indian Penal Code''). Accused Jayasingh Bhoi was also charged for all such offences together with the offence u/s 109 Indian Penal Code. In course of trial, prosecution relied on the evidence of 15 witnesses and exhibited various documents marked Ext. 1 to 21. Accused persons took the plea of denial to the allegations but did not adduce any defence evidence.

Amongst the witnesses, P.W. 6, Parikhita Sahu, P.W. 7, Premananda Sahu, P.W. 8, Sarat Chandra Barik and P.W. 9 Ghansyam Sahu were the four cultivators, who transacted for sale of paddy to the accused persons. P.W. 2 was the then Assistant Secretary-cum-Mill Manager, R.C.M.S., Padampur, who deposed about procurement of rice by the R.C.M.C., at the rate of Rs. 137/- per quintals. His examination in chief was not completed for the reasons best known to the prosecution and therefore he could not be cross-examined. Therefore, that evidence is not to be read in support of the prosecution. P.W. 5 was the Supply Supervisor, Padampur during the relevant period. He stated about the rate of paddy during the relevant time, P.W. 11 was the Professor of the University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, who received the sample paddy for analysis, P.W. 12 was the handwriting expert of the S.F.S.L., who gave his opinion on the signatures appearing in some of the fabricated receipts in comparison to the signatures of P. Ws. 6 to 9. P.W. 10 was the Accountant in the office of DDA, Sambalpur during the relevant period. On analysis of the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses and the documentary evidence on record, Learned Special Judge (Vigilance) recorded the finding that prosecution failed to prove charges in the matter of procurement of paddy and payment of price and in that respect the evidence which is available is not sufficient to bring home the charge. Accordingly, he granted benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused persons.

As against the aforesaid order of acquittal of the Learned Special Judge (Vig.) in the impugned judgment passed on 14.12.1994, the State of Orissa filed application for leave to appeal as against the present Respondent-Manohar Mishra. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the leave petition that prosecution does not oppose to the order of acquittal in favour of the other accused persons.

Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Deptt. submits that on the face of the evidence of P. Ws.6, 7 and 9 and the report of the handwriting expert, there remain no doubt that accused Respondent-Manohar Mishra is guilty of the offence for fabricating false receipts making less payment towards actual price of the paddy and indicating a higher price in the receipts, not obtaining the signature of the seller in all such receipts and forgoing their signatures in all receipts. All such acts and omissions, undoubtedly, satisfy the requirement of law for the offences for which the said accused was charged (as noted above) and therefore the mistake committed by the Trial Court in granting benefit of doubt be rectified by conviction the said accused.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent on the other hand argues that the order of acquittal is on the basis of proper assessment of evidence by the Trial Court and no illegality or perversity has been pointed out from the findings so as to warrant interference with the order of acquittal. If two views are possible from the evidence and one view has been taken by the Trial Court the other view should not be invoked in an appeal against order of acquittal. He further argues that looking to the case of the prosecution as projected, there is no allegation of unilateral act by accused Manohar Mishra so as to convict him for all such offence, once prosecution supports the order of acquittal of the remaining two accused persons, According to him the act and omissions as per the prosecution allegations against accused Manohar and Jayasingh is made jointly. In the process of procurement of paddy and price and therefore once prosecution supports the order of acquittal of Jayasingh, it should not argue for the Respondent.

After going through the evidence on record, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and reasoning assigned by the respective Counsel in support of their case, it is seen that according to the case of the prosecution procurement of paddy was made by accused Manohar Mishra and Jaysingh Bhoi and both of them are instrumental in the matter of procurement, payment of price, preparation of receipt and vouchers. Once that be so, when the prosecution exempted Jayasingh Bhoi on the reasons assigned by the Trial Court, the same benefit be made available to Manohar Mishra in the absence of specific evidence against the Respondent.

Under such circumstance, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is not interfered with and the Government Appeal is dismissed.

Govt. appeal dismissed