RAGHUNATH GANTAYAT AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Raghunath along with one Trinath Rota (since acquitted) stood charged under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'I.P.C.'). Appellant Judhistir Bisoi stood charged under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and Sections 1091 477A, I.P.C.

(2.) PROSECUTION case bereft of unnecessary details is that accused Trinath Hota was the Block Development Officer, Narayanpatna Block from 15 -7 -1970 to 31 -10 -1973 and Appellant No. 1 Raghunath was the Sub -Overseer of the said block from 23 -8 -1972 to 17 -8 -1973 and from 16 -10 -1973 to 19 -11 -1973. In the year 1972 -73 funds were received from time to time, from the Collector, Koraput for execution of different schemes. Even though there -was no resolution for construction of Minor -Irrigation Channel at Jhilimilijhola, yet Appellant Raghunath prepared an estimate for Rs. 7,100/ - and accorded technical sanction without furnishing any data, accused Trinath accorded administrative approval to the said project on 24 -2 -1973, and the work was taken up without any plan and collection of hydraulic particulars. Though Sub -Overseers were not vested with power to accord technical sanction to any estimate in view of the letter No. 39175/R. dated 11 - 8 -1972 of the Revenue Department, yet Appellant Raghunath accorded technical sanction and accused Trinath accepted the same. Though the work should have been entrusted to a village committee, which in turn would have selected a leader for execution of the work, Judhistir Bisoi, Appellant No. 2 without such selection by the village committee was entrusted with the work. By this action the Appellant -Raghunath and accused Trinath had shown favoritism to Appellant Judhistir. On verification of the measurement and on testing, it was found out that proper materials were not 'utilised in requisite proportion. On evaluation it was found out that the value of the work done in this project was Rs. 1647.88 paise, as against which a sum of Rs. 7,000/ - was paid to Appellant Judhistir. From this it was evident that the Appellant Raghunath and accused Trinath had committed criminal misconduct by abusing their positions as public servants and had obtained pecuniary benefit for the Appellant Judhistir and for themselves by recording false and inflated measurement in respect of the project putting the Government to a loss to the extent of Rs. 5,352.12 paise.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned Special Judge, six points were involved for consideration, that is ; (1) whether there was valid sanction for prosecution of these two public servants; (2) whether the work was executed without any resolution of the panchayat samiti and whether Shri R.N. Gantayat was not competent to prepare estimate and accord technical sanction to it ; (3) whether Judhistir Bisoi was not selected as the village leader to executed the project; (4) whether both the works namely the cross bundh and the M.L.C. were not executed according to the measurement recorded in the M.B. for which a sum of Rs. 6,835/ - was paid for; (5) whether the M.B. was finalised by entering false measurement under which 'excess payments were made with the intent to defraud and whether accused Bisoi is guilty of abetment of the above offence; and (6) whether the explanations offered by the accused persons are reasonable to be accepted.