Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The appellant was the Technical Consultant of K. Nuagaon Block, Office of the D.P.C., D.P.E.P., S.S.A. in the district of Kandhamal. The co-accused Basant Kumar Mohanty was the Headmaster of Asumadhi Primary School (hereafter 'the school') for the period from 10.05.2002 to 28.02.2008, and co-accused Kantheswar Pradhan was the SEC- President of the school for the period from 31.08.2004 to 02.04.2011. The appellant along with the co-accused Basanta Kumar Mohanty and Kantheswar Pradhan were charged under Section 13(1)(c) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter '1988 Act') and Sections 409, 120-B, 201 of the Indian Penal Code on the accusation that in between the year 2005 to 2007, they dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted for their own use Rs.75,798/- (rupees seventy five thousand seven hundred ninety eight) from the school account sanctioned for construction of one additional classroom in the school and they committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the property/amount so entrusted. The appellant was charged additionally and separately for the offence under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code on the further accusation that during the period from 2005 to 2007, he wilfully with intention to defraud entered false measurements in the Measurement Book No.144, which was received by him on behalf of his employer D.P.C., S.S.S., Kandhamal and was under

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that pursuant to an allegation of misappropriation of Government money in construction of one additional classroom of the school under K. Nuagaon Block in the district of Kandhamal, a vigilance enquiry was taken up by Santosh Kumar Samantara (P.W.8), Inspector of Vigilance, Berhampur Division. During enquiry, it was found that in the year 2004-05, for construction of one additional classroom of the school, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was approved by the D.P.C., D.P.E.P., Kandhamal. By that time, the co- accused Basanta Kumar Mohanty was the Headmaster of the school as well as Secretary of the School Education Committee (SEC) and co- accused Kantheswar Pradhan was the President of the School Education Committee. Both of them entered into an agreement with the D.P.C., D.P.E.P., Kandhamal to execute the construction work and accordingly, work order letter no.470(A) dated 05.03.2005 (Ext.2/3) was issued in their favour. A joint Savings Bank Account vide A/c. No.8032 was opened in the name of the school at UCO Bank, Raikia Branch, in which an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- was credited towards execution of the aforesaid work. It was further found that both the co-accused President and Secretary withdrew Rs.1,30,000/- in between 15.04.2005 to 12.02.2007 from the D.P.E.P. fund and started construction of the work. They constructed the building up to roof level and then stopped the work since 2007. Thereafter, the co-accused Basanta Kumar Mohanty retired from service on 29.02.2008 and the construction work remained as such. In spite of repeated reminders of the D.P.C., D.P.E.P., Kandhamal, the work did not proceed further. As per the direction of the D.P.C., the present appellant measured the work done and valued it at Rs.59,642/-. However, on the requisition of Enquiring Officer, when the building was technically inspected on 26.11.2010, the technical inspection team calculated the cost of the work done to be Rs.54,202/- and as such, it was held that the appellant found to have made some false entries in the measurement book (Ext.3) by showing inflated measurements. As the technical inspection team calculated the value of the work done at Rs.54,202/- against the sanctioned and received the amount by the accused persons to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/-, the Enquiring Officer (P.W.8) lodged an F.I.R. (Ext.15) on 28.11.2011 with the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Berhampur alleging misappropriation of Rs.75,798/- (Rs.1,30,000-Rs.54,202) by the co-accused Basanta Kumar Mohanty in connivance with the appellant, who allegedly intentionally entered excess measurements in the measurement book by showing excess work done value of Rs.5,440/- (Rs.59,642.00-Rs.54,202.00).

The learned trial Court, however, held that the appellant was employed as a Technical Consultant under K. Nuagaon Block and he was issued with M.B. No.144 marked as Ext.3 which was of the D.P.C., S.S.A., Kandhamal and he being employed to enter measurement in the measurement book on behalf of the D.P.C., S.S.A., Kandhamal under whom he was employed, made false entries of inflated measurement by showing excess work done value of Rs.5,440/- wilfully with an intent to defraud the Government. It was further held that the prosecution had proved all the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 477-A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and accordingly, the learned trial Court found him guilty of such charge. Since the appellant was found to have resigned from his service, when the charge sheet was submitted, it was held that no sanction was required to launch prosecution against him.

The prime ingredient to bring home the charge of the offence under Section 477-A is the "willfull and fraudulent intent" to defraud the exchequer by wrongfully making entries in the books. In the facts scenario of the present case, the trial Court appears to have gone wrong in tracing the ill-intent of the appellant to cause defraud the exchequer.

10. The learned trial Court while considering the role played by the petitioner in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment has been pleased to hold that M.B. No.144 marked as Ext.3 was issued to the petitioner by the Financial Consultant, SSA, Kandhamal to enter the measurement of the work done. The petitioner measured the work done for Rs.59,642/-. The entries made by the petitioner and his signature in the measurement book were proved by P.W.1. On the other hand, P.W.6, Asst. Engineer at K. Nuagaon Block who along with others technically inspected the additional class room building work and prepared the technical inspection report (Ext.13) and the map with findings (Ext.13/1) stated in his evidence that the final measurement of the work done came to Rs.54,202/-. Thus, the work done value as measured by the petitioner as per Ext.3 did not tally with the work done value as assessed by P.W.6 in Ext.13. The learned trial Court analyzed the evidence of P.W.6 carefully and found that the plinth bent thickness has been given as 6" instead of 4" in M.B. No.144 Page No.05, R.R. stone masonry third footing height has been given as 2' instead of 1' 6" actual in M.B. No.144, page No.04 and Leveling Course with C.C.124 has not been done, but given in item no.07 of M.B. No.144, page no.07 by the petitioner. The learned trial Court accepted the evidence of P.W.6 coupled with the map with findings recorded in Ext.13/1 and held that the petitioner has made false entries in the M.B. Since the work done value ascertained by the petitioner is for Rs.59,642/- against the actual work done value of Rs.54,202/- as opined by the Technical Inspection Team and mentioned in Ext.13, the learned trial Court found that the petitioner had shown excess work done value of Rs.5440/-. If the work done value entered by the petitioner in M.B. was accepted, there would be loss of Rs.5440/- to the Govt./State Exchequer. The learned trial Court held that the wrong committed by the petitioner cannot be said to be unintentional and result of miscalculation, rather appears to be willful and intentional. Therefore, it was held that with an intent to defraud the Govt., the petitioner made false entries in the M.B. which was received by him on behalf of DPC/SSA, Kandhamal, under whom he was employed as Technical Consultant.