Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Pratap Chandra Suar ......... Opp. ... on 16 August, 2021
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
CRLLP No.15 of 2011
From the judgment and order dated 09.02.2010 passed by the
Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur in T.R. No. 75 of 1998.
-----------------------------
State of Odisha ......... Petitioner
-Versus-
Pratap Chandra Suar ......... Opp. party
For Petitioner: - Mr. Sangram Das
Standing Counsel (Vig.)
For Opp. party: - Mr. Srinivas Mohanty
Advocate
----------------------------
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 06.08.2021 Date of Order: 16.08.2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Sahoo, J. The State of Odisha has preferred this CRLLP petition
under sections 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to
prefer an appeal against impugned judgment and order dated
09.02.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur
in T.R. No.75 of 1998 in acquitting the opposite party Pratap
Chandra Suar of the charges under section 13(2) read with
2
section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(hereafter '1988 Act').
2. The prosecution case, in short, is that the opposite
party Pratap Chandra Suar entered into OSRTC Service in June
1956 as Traffic Inspector followed by his promotion as the A.T.M.
in the year 1971 and he was promoted as the D.T.M. in the year
1984 and continued as such. All his three brothers and sisters
were married and were living separately. He had landed
properties extending to 40 Bharanas till the death of his father in
the year 1992 and thereafter the same remained under the joint
possession of himself and his brothers. He married to Saraswati
Suar in the year 1962 and was blessed with two sons and two
daughters and the daughters who got married long back. His
eldest son got employed in NTPC since 01.09.1987 but his other
son was a student of Engineering and unmarried. His residential
house stood in the name of his wife and at the time of search
and check, it came to the notice of the vigilance police that as
against his income of Rs.6.92 lakhs which he earned since 1956
till 10.01.1992, his expenditure during that period came to
Rs.5.00 lakh and thus his savings came to Rs.1.92 lakhs and
that as against this probable savings of Rs.1.92 lakhs, he got
assets worth of Rs.12.24 lakhs in excess of his said savings and
3
accordingly, after investigation, the vigilance police of
Berhampur placed charge sheet against the opposite party
showing therein that as against his total income of Rs.10.53
lakhs during the said period, he incurred expenditure of a sum of
rs.7.14 lakhs, that as against the balance of Rs.3.39 lakhs being
his probable savings, he had disproportionate assets worth of
Rs.8.51 lakhs and that hence he was liable for punishment under
section 13(2) of the 1988 Act.
3. The opposite party was charged under section 13(2)
read with section 13(1)(2) of the 1988 Act on the accusation that
during the period from 18.06.1956 to 10.01.1994, he being the
Traffic Inspector, then the A.T.M. and then the D.T.M. under the
O.S.R.T.C., Cuttack acquired assets worth of Rs.8.50 lakhs being
disproportionate to his known sources income during the period,
to which he pleaded not guilty.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined thirty
three witnesses. P.W.1 is the then D.T.M., Cuttack, who had
prepared the pay particulars of the opposite party vide Ext.1.
P.W.2 is the then M.D. of O.S.R.T.C., Bhubaneswar and he had
furnished the property statement of the accused vide Ext.2.
P.W.3 produced the certified copies of the registered documents
vide Exts.3 to 7. P.W.4 is the Branch Manager of I.O.B. who
4
issued the certified copy of the ledger relating to the account of
the wife of the accused vide Ext.8. P.W.5 is an official of P.N.B.,
Berhampur who issued the certified copy of the S.B. account of
the son of the accused vide Ext.9. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the
brother's son and brother of the opposite party respectively
P.W.8 is the father-in-law of the daughter of the accused and he
stated about the non-receipt of dowry by him from the accused.
P.W.9 is the tenant of the house of the accused who stated that
he was paying Rs.2,000/- towards rent to the accused. P.W.10
and P.W.11 are the witnesses to the house search of the accused
as per the search warrant vide Ext.10 and the search list Ext.11.
P.W.12 is the clerk of the Registration Office, who prepared the
copies of public documents vide Exts.3 to 6. P.W.13 is the
goldsmith who weighed the gold and silver ornaments found
from the house of the accused. P.W.14 is the clerk in the office
of the C.S.O., Chhatrapur who proved the rate chart of paddy.
P.W.15 being the Building Inspector of P.W.D. estimated the cost
of the building of the accused. PW.16 is a statistical investigator
and he furnished the estimated statement showing the per capita
expenditure of the family of the accused on food, fuel, light,
clothing and foot wear and proved his report vide Ext.41. P.W.17
is a witness to the search of the house of the accused. P.W.18 is
5
the then Addl. Executive Officer of Berhampur Municipality and
he proved the matters relating to holding tax of the house of the
accused. P.W.19 is the then Statistical Officer of Berhampur who
furnished the yield rate of paddy vide Ext.42. P.W.20 is the
Executive Engineer (Electrical) who furnished the statement of
energy charges of the house of the accused. P.W.21 is the
Special Officer of the B.D.A. and he stated that the accused
deposited some advance in the B.D.A. Office for a piece of plot.
P.W.22 is the Labour Welfare Officer of O.S.R.T.C. and he proved
the property statement of the accused vide Ext.2. P.W.23 is the
Junior Accountant of O.S.R.T.C., Jeypore and he proved the
seizure of 13 volumes of Pay Acquaintance Roll Registers under
seizure list vide Ext.43/1. P.W.24 is the then Officer in-charge of
Berhampur P.S. and he stated that he registered the case as per
F.I.R. vide Ext.44. P.W.25 is the then Administrative Officer of
L.I.C. who stated about the L.I.C. premium deposits of the
accused. P.W.26 is the Junior Accountant of Rourkela
Improvement Trust and he did not say anything. P.W.27 is the
then Tahasildar of Chikiti who furnished the land particulars of
the accused. P.W.28 is the Income Tax Officer of Berhampur and
he stated that neither the accused nor his wife furnished any
income tax returns. P.W.29 is the then A.R.T.O., Koraput and he
6
stated that the scooter bearing registration No.OSK 9819 worth
of Rs.17,000/- stood in the name of the son of the accused.
P.W.30 is a Lecturer in M.K.C.G. Medical College and Hospital,
Berhampur who being a tenant in the house of the accused,
stated that he was paying Rs.800/- per month towards rent to
the accused. P.W.32 is the then C.M.D., O.S.R.T.C.,
Bhubaneswar and he furnished the property statement of the
accused vide Ext.2. P.W.32 is the then D.T.M., Bhawanipatna
and he stated to have furnished the pay particulars of the
accused vide Ext.19/1. P.W. 33 is the informant -cum-
Investigating Officer of the case.
5. The son of the younger brother of the accused being
examined as P.W.6 stated about his family genealogy and further
stated that his father and the accused were living separately. His
younger brother (P.W.7) stated that he and the accused were
residing separately but in joint family and that they had about 40
Bharanas of ancestral agricultural land.
6. The informant (P.W.33) who is also the Investigating
Officer of the case stated that on 17.02.1994 he lodged the
F.I.R. (Ext.44) before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance),
Berhampur in connection with the disproportionate assets of the
accused and that upon the direction of the S.P, he took up
7
investigation of the case. He obtained search warrant from the
C.J.M., Berhampur and on 09.01.1994 he searched the house of
the accused at Chikiti Bangala street of Berhampur in presence
of the wife of the accused and found different household articles,
gold and silver ornaments and documents relating to the Bank,
which he seized. He released all the household articles, gold
ornaments and cash in the zima of the accused and on
10.01.1994 he searched the office room of the accused and also
searched the I.B. room, which was under his occupation. He
collected the pay particulars of the accused, the certified copies
of his possessed lands, obtained the valuation reports of his
assets from different authorities and on completion of
investigation, he submitted charge sheet against the accused to
the effect that the accused had disproportionate assets worth of
Rs.8.51 lakhs in excess of his probable savings being Rs.3.39
lakhs (approximately).
7. The opposite party examined three witnesses
including himself as D.W.3 and he stated that the vigilance police
did not make proper calculation and that their assessment is
exorbitant and that if calculated properly, he would be having no
disproportionate assets at all. He stated the details of the items
of the property and the cost thereof, which he disputed with that
8
of the vigilance findings. His brother in-law (D.W.1) stated that
the accused had married to his sister in 1962 and in that
marriage, sixty tolas of silver ornaments, twenty tolas of gold
ornaments, cash of Rs.20,000/- and household articles worth of
Rs.40,000/- were given to the accused and that the list
containing those items were prepared by his maternal uncle vide
Ext.A. Co-villager Gopal Krushna Panda (D.W.2) stated that the
father of the accused was a renowned cultivator of their area and
that his annual yield per acre was about five to six loads of
paddy and that his father had owned and cultivated Ac.2.43
acres of land.
8. The learned trial Court on detailed analysis of the
evidence on record and law, pursuant to the impugned
judgment, acquitted the opposite party of the charges under
section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(2) of 1988 Act. While
passing the order of acquittal, the learned trial Court took into
account the evidence of the two brothers of the opposite party
who were examined as P.W.7 and D.W.1 and accepted the
defence plea that after the death of their father, a box containing
cash of Rs.2,30,507/- was found which was deposited in the
bank accounts of the wife of the opposite party on consent of all
the brothers and accordingly, the learned trial Court deducted
9
the amount of Rs.2.31 lakh from the assets of the opposite
party. The learned trial Court taking into account the agricultural
income of the opposite party from the landed properties as per
the documents proved, came to hold that an amount of Rs.1.7
lakh has not been shown by the prosecution as his probable
savings. So far as house rent is concerned, the learned trial
Court added a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the savings of the accused.
The learned trial Court added Rs.98,000/- to the probable
savings of the opposite party towards the non-existent second
floor of the building calculated by the Building Inspector
(P.W.15) wrongly and the gift received. An amount of
Rs.10,000/- which the opposite party received from his father-in-
law during marriage was deducted from the assets. Calculating
the expenses from food, clothing and foot wear during the check
period, the opposite party was given benefit of Rs.2.42 lakhs.
9. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Department while challenging the impugned judgment
contended that the learned trial Court has come to an erroneous
finding that some of the properties came to the opposite party
from his father and father-in-law and it is highly improbable that
when the son of the opposite party was holding high official
position, the opposite party would continue to be a cultivator or
10
at least to be a Bhag Chasi. It is argued that the defence plea
about recovery of huge cash from a box after the death of the
father of the opposite party and that the brothers of the opposite
party who were living separately agreed to keep such amount in
the accounts of the wife of the opposite party is very difficult to
be accepted and the said amount should not have been included
in the income of the opposite party and therefore, the learned
trial Court has committed illegality in acquitting the opposite
party.
Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned counsel for the
opposite party on the other hand supported the impugned
judgment and contended that the view taken by the learned trial
Court cannot be said to be perverse and vigilance case was
instituted in the year 1994 and the order of acquittal was passed
in 2010 and the opposite party is now more than eighty years of
age and therefore, no leave should be granted to the petitioner
to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal.
10. Law is well settled as held in case of Babu -Vrs.-
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in A.I.R. 1983 Supreme
Court 308 that in appeal against acquittal, if two views are
possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the
conclusions arrived at by the trial Court unless the conclusions
11
are not possible. If the finding reached by the trial Judge cannot
be said to be unreasonable, the appellate Court should not
disturb it even if it were possible to reach a different conclusion
on the basis of the material on the record because the trial Judge
has the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses and the
initial presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is not
weakened by his acquittal. The appellate Court, therefore, should
be slow in disturbing the finding of fact of the trial Court and if
two views are reasonably possible on the evidence on the record,
it is not expected to interfere simply because it feels that it
would have taken a different view if the case had been tried by
it.
Thus, an order of acquittal should not be disturbed in
appeal under section 378 of Cr.P.C. unless it is perverse or
unreasonable. There must exist very strong and compelling
reasons in order to interfere with the same.
11. On going through the impugned judgment as well as
prosecution evidence carefully and considering the contentions
raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department as well as by the learned counsel for the opposite
party, I am of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that
the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are not
12
possible or it is unreasonable. There is no perversity or illegality
in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Judge has not
ignored any material evidence on record and after assessing it
minutely, he has reached at the conclusion and given benefit of
doubt to the opposite party. Therefore, considering the scope of
interference in a case of appeal against the order of acquittal, I
am not inclined to grant leave to the petitioner to prefer an
appeal.
Accordingly, the CRLLP petition stands dismissed.
..............................
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th August 2021 PKSahoo