The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLA No. 226 of 2007 (Arising out of the Judgment of conviction on dated 30th of April, 2007 passed by Shri S. C. Mishra, Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R.Case No. 42 of 1997(V)/T. R. No. 40 of 1999, for the offences under 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) ---------- Prakash Chandra Swain …. Appellant Mr. M. Mohanty, Advocate State of Orissa -versus- …. Respondent Mr. M. S. Rizvi, ASC (Vigilance) P R E S E N T: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Date of Judgment : 19.04.2024 Chittaranjan Dash, J. 1. The Appellant, namely Prakash Chandra Swain faced the trial on the charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, herein after referred to “P.C. Act”) before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur for having misappropriated the government funds wherein, the learned court found him guilty in the offences charged as above, convicted and sentenced the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for three months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.07.1997, the Vigilance Department, Raygada, lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police (Vig.), Berhampur Division, Berhampur, alleging that the present Appellant during his tenure had diverted certain funds which had been sanctioned in favour of Sinapali Weavers Co-operative Society (herein referred to as “W.C.S.”) vide letter No. 2159/T&H, dated 08.03.1994 of Govt. of Orissa, Textiles and Handloom Department, Bhubaneswar, as per the advice of Handloom Development Commissioner, Govt. of India, for setting up Handloom Development Centre and Quality Dyeing Unit. According to the prosecution, on 21.04.1994, the Appellant received the draft. He, however, deposited the said bank draft in Bhawanipatna Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Sadar Branch on 23.05.1994 without giving clear instruction to the Bank as to in which account the amount of the draft had to be credited. The Bank Authority, therefore, kept the amount in the Sundry account of the Bank in favour of Asst. Director of Textiles, Bhawanipatna. It is further
Legal Reasoning
There is no dispute that the Appellant was a public servant at the relevant time. The question for determination would be as to whether he had CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 8 of 17 misappropriated the alleged funds by virtue of his official position or that he has used illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant and obtained valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person. 11. P.W.14, the Secretary of Nehuru Nagar W.C.S in his sworn testimony has stated that in the year 1994, the Appellant purchased yarn for Sinapali Weavers Cooperative Society using the funds allocated to them. As Sinapali Weavers Cooperative Society declined to accept the 26S yarn, the Appellant asked him to issue a receipt to Sinapali Weavers Cooperative Society for ₹4,76,800/- and so the receipt, marked as Ext. 5, was issued by him accordingly. Subsequently, the Appellant provided a credit bill book, and he signed 27 credit vouchers indicating yarn supply to various primary societies, with Exts. 6 to 6/26 comprising those credit bills. Furthermore, the Appellant presented a yarn stock book in Nehuru Nagar W.C.S's name, with P.W.14’s signatures confirming the distribution of 800 bundles of yarn to different primary centers. Initially, the Appellant had mentioned a subsidy of ₹15/- per kg. of yarn but later declined to take action, claiming it was a transaction between our society and Sinapali. Upon investigation, it was confirmed that no such transaction existed between the two societies. Consequently, P.W.14 retrieved the receipt issued to Sinapali and cancelled it. In June of 1994, the Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. passed a resolution urging the A.D.T. to procure yarn on credit for use by the primary societies. Following this, the A.D.T. instructed the Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. to take stock of yarn from Sinapali on credit, resulting in Ext. 5 being issued in favor of Sinapali W.C.S. According to P.W.14, the A.D.T. did not directly oversee the supply of yarn to primary Weavers cooperative societies. CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 9 of 17 Throughout the year of 1994, P.W.14 personally received 220 bundles of yarn in two installments and obtained a subsidy of ₹ 14,500/-, as reflected in their cash book and bank passbook. By the time of the vigilance inquiry, ₹2,07,862/- out of ₹4,76,800/- had already been deposited by the concerned primary societies to Sinapali W.C.S. 12. On the other hand, P.W.22 who served as the secretary of the Sinapali Weavers Co-operative Society during the years 1988 to 1999, has stated that in the period between 1994 and 1995, he became aware that the central government had allocated ₹6,00,000 to Sinapali society. According to him, the society follows a protocol where resolutions are passed for any undertaken work or activities, and copies of these resolutions are sent to the Assistant Director of Textiles in Bhawanipatna. Upon learning about the allocation of ₹6,00,000, he visited the Assistant Director's office and discovered that he had directly purchased 40 bales of yarn from NHDC (National Handloom Development Corporation) without informing the Sinapali W.C.S. This yarn purchase was not included in the sanctioned allotment for the society. Normally, the sanctioned amount would have been deposited into the Sinapali W.C.S.’s accounts, and they would then pass a resolution for implementing any work using those funds. Upon realizing that the purchased yarn was unnecessary for the society, they passed a resolution stating so. However, the Assistant Director instructed them to record the receipt of ₹6,00,000 in their cash book and directed that a portion of it (₹4,76,800) be withdrawn and be paid to the Nehuru Nagar Weavers Co-operative Society. He provided a letter and a receipt as instructions for this payment. Later, the Secretary of the Nehuru Nagar CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 10 of 17 Society came to P.W.22, took back the receipt, and cancelled it when Sinapali W.C.S. denied to have agreed to this circumstance. Subsequently, the Nehuru Nagar Cooperative Society deposited ₹4,00,900.30 into the account of Sinapali W.C.S. P.W.22 later stated that the Director of Textiles had informed them about the sanction of ₹6,00,000 and the selection of the society through a letter dated 12.03.1994. Out of this amount, ₹4,00,000 was allocated for yarn, while the remaining ₹2,00,000 was intended for purchasing utensils and providing training to society members in dyeing techniques. Twenty members of the society received training at Chicheiguda Cooperative Society, and 20 sets of utensils were provided by the Assistant Director. However, no dye was supplied. When the Joint Director of Textiles conducted an inquiry, all 20 sets of utensils were in the possession of the President. On 01.05.1994, the society passed a resolution expressing it's need for yarns, specifically requesting 40 bundles of 26S of yarn. The same was requested to the Assistant Director to approve the resolution but he was not authorized to purchase 40 bales of 26S of yarn as per the resolution dated 01.05.1994. On 2.7.1994, the society passed a resolution stating that the 26S of yarn purchased by the Assistant Director would not be useful for the society. The Handloom Dying Unit and Quality Dyeing Unit scheme was to be implemented by the Assistant Director through the society selected by the Central Government. According to the scheme, yarns should be purchased from spinning mills of the concerned states, and no yarns can be purchased from private firms. When they declined to accept the 26S of yarn purchased by the Assistant Director, it was diverted to the Nehuru Nagar society. The Assistant Director informed them that the Nehuru Nagar society would pay CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 11 of 17 interest on this amount of ₹4,76,800 at 1% for the first two months and 5% thereafter. However, P.W.22 was unaware of any such resolution passed by Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. Subsequently, Sinapali W.C.S. provided a utilisation certificate for the sanctioned amount of ₹6,00,000 to the Central Government. 13. From the above and upon careful examination of the evidence presented, there is indeed discrepancies in the utilisation of funds allocated for the Sinapali W.C.S. as the testimonies of witnesses, including the Secretary of Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. and P.W.22, former Secretary of Sinapali W.C.S., highlight the divergence between the sanctioned purpose of the funds and their actual utilisation. However, Appellant's actions were guided by instructions and resolutions passed by the respective weaver’s societies. It is contended that the purchases made by the Appellant were in accordance with the directions received from the societies and were intended for the benefit of the cooperative sector as a whole. In the context of misappropriation case, an “irregularity” would refer to a deviation from established procedures, or legal requirements governing the handling or allocation of funds. It can encompass a wide range of actions or omissions that result in the improper use or allocation of resources, but may not necessarily involve intentional wrongdoing or criminal intent. It is important to note that while irregularities may not always involve criminal intent, they can still have serious consequences, including financial losses, damage to reputation, and legal liabilities. The determination of whether an action constitutes an irregularity or criminal misconduct often depends on CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 12 of 17 factors such as the intention behind the act, the degree of negligence or recklessness involved, and the impact on affected parties. 14. The Apex Court in it’s decision in the matter of M. Narayan Nambiar Vs. State of Kerala 1963 AIR 1116, also cited in S. K. Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra 1977 AIR 822, and various other decisions, has discussed the essentials in provision of Section 13(1)(d), as held: In our view this passage, if we may say so, restates the rule of construction of a penal provision from A correct perspective. As we will presently show the case of the appellant on the facts found clearly falls not only within the words of clause (d) but also within 'its spirit. Indeed if his argument be accepted not only we will be doing violence to the language but also to the spirit of the enactment. First taking the phraseology used inthe clause, the case of a public servantcausing wrongful loss; to the Government be benefiting a thirdparty squarely falls within it. Let us look at the clause "by otherwise abusing the position of a public servant', for the argument mainly turns upon the said clause. The phraseology is very comprehensive. It covers acts done “otherwise” than by corrupt or illegal means by an officer abusing his position. The gist of the offence under this clause is that a public officer abusing his position as _a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. "Abuse" means misuse i.e. using his position for something for which it is not intended That abuse may be by. corrupt or illegal means or otherwise than those means. The word 'otherwise' has wide connotation and if no limitation is placed on it, the words 'corrupt, 'illegal', and "otherwise' mentioned the clause become surplusage, for on that construction every abuse of position is gathered by the clause. So 'some limitation will have to. be put on that word and that limitation is that it takes colour from the preceding words along with which it appears in the clause, that is to say something savouring of dishonest act on his part. The contention of the learned counsel that if the clause is widely construed even a recommendation made by a public servant for securing a job for another may come within the Clause and that could not have been the intention of the Legislature. But in our in CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 13 of 17 view such innocuous acts will not be covered by the said clause. The juxtaposition of the word or otherwise' with the words "corrupt or illegal means" and the dishonesty implicit in the word "'abuse" indicate the necessity for a dishonest intention on his part to bring him within the meaning of the clause. Whether he abused his position or not depends upon the facts of each case; nor can the word 'obtains' be sought in aid to limit the express words of the section 15. Furthermore, the question as to whether violation of the rules and departmental norms would amount to the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was considered by the Apex Court in C. K. Jaffer Sharief v. State 2013 (1) SCC 205. The Apex Court held thus: “If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant.” 16. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to produce any material to show that the Appellant with dishonest intention abused his position as a public servant. Firstly, the Appellant while distributing the bundles of yarn to the primary centres of Nehuru Nagar W.C.S., had supplied so, on credit only, which was adjusted in the M.D.A. account of the concerned societies as deposed to by P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18 and 20 where the Appellant, under Ext. 17, 18 and Ext. A had given instructions to deposit the amount in the account of Sinapali Weavers Cooperative Society. Secondly, by the time of the vigilance inquiry, ₹2,07,862/- out of ₹4,76,800/- was already deposited by the concerned CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 14 of 17 societies to Sinapali W.C.S. and Nehuru Nagar Cooperative Society had subsequently deposited ₹4,00,900.30 into the account of Sinapali W.C.S. as is also admitted by Sinapali W.C.S. 17. The essence of the offense outlined in Section 13(1)(d) implies that the presence of a dishonest intention is fundamental to prove the abuse of position or authority of a public servant. The Appellant’s actions and way of managing the funds might have deviated from accepted standards or regulations within the department, however, it would be inaccurate to claim that these actions were motivated by a dishonest intention to gain an unjust benefit either for himself or for Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. 18. Furthermore, the only “pecuniary benefit” that the Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. obtained was a subsidy of ₹14,500/- as per the regulations in the Hank Yarn Subsidy Scheme which the Sinapali W.C.S. is claiming but has admitted to have refused the same. On 2.7.1994, the Sinapali society passed a resolution stating that the 26S of yarn purchased by the Assistant Director would not be useful for the society. The Handloom Dying Unit and Quality Dyeing Unit scheme was to be implemented by the Assistant Director through the society selected by the central government. According to the scheme, yarns should be purchased from spinning mills of the concerned states, and no yarns can be purchased from private firms. When Sinapali W.C.S. declined to accept the 26S of yarn purchased by the Appellant-A.D.T., it was diverted to the Nehuru Nagar society. Subsequently, the Joint Director of Textiles had visited the Sinapali W.C.S. and had taken the society’s resolution book. Despite CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 15 of 17 several request for its return, he did not comply, so the society opened a new resolution book and passed a resolution regarding the earlier book's removal. The resolution book was however produced by D.W.1 as per summons vide Ext. B which clearly shows at Page 99 that on 06.04.1994, the Sinapali W.C.S. had rejected the 26S yarn as they did not require it at that time. From the fact above, it can be seen that the actions undertaken by the Appellant adhered to the directions provided by the societies and were aimed at ensuring the welfare of the cooperative sector in its entirety without causing harm or loss to any individual entity as a result of his decision. The distribution on credit can be seen as an adjustment to be made in order to have utilised the already purchased yarns from the National Handloom Development Corporation. Finally, there was no financial benefit accrued in favour of the Appellant as for the remainder amount of ₹76,800 in question was never proved by the prosecution to have been obtained by the Appellant for himself to the fact that the utilisation is only shown for ₹4,00,000, or on the part of the Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. as the distribution was made on credit and the same was returned to the Sinapali W.C.S. eventually. 19. On a perspicacious analysis of the evidence on record and the settled principles of law in the decisions referred to above, the ingredients of offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act are not found established. Consequently, the offence under Section 13(2) will not be attracted. Hence, it is irresistible to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges against the Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the Appellant as such is entitled to an acquittal. CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 16 of 17 20.
Arguments
alleged that as per the instruction of the Government, Mr. Swain was to credit the draft amount in the SBD account of Sinapali W.C.S. Instead of doing so, Mr. Swain obtained a Bank draft of ₹4,76,800/- in favour of the National Handloom Development Corporation, Hyderabad through Bhawanipatna Central Cooperative Bank vide Demand draft no. TL/A/II-720926 dated 06.06.94. Mr. Swain personally handed over the draft at Bhubaneswar Branch of National Handloom Development CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 2 of 17 Corporation Ltd. on 07.06.1994. He also placed orders for supply of 40 bales of 26S yarns. On 22.7.1994, 40 bales of 26S yarns were received in favour of Nehuru Nagar Weavers Cooperative Society. Mr. Swain distributed the same in favour of different primary weaver societies through Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. under the “Hank Yarn Subsidy Scheme” with a view to derive subsidy benefit by the above society, although the money had been sanctioned for Sinapali W.C.S. Moreover, out of the sanctioned amount of ₹6,00,000/- a sum of ₹4,00,000/- was to be utilised as margin money towards the purchase of raw materials and the balance of ₹2,00,000/- was for setting up Quality Dyeing Unit in favour of Sinapali W.C.S. but Mr. Swain deliberately did not credit the draft amount in favour of Sinapali W.C.S. The report further alleged that Mr. Swain, A.D.T., Bhawanipatna by violating the orders of the Government and Director of Textiles, Bhubaneswar, Odisha in order to arrange pecuniary benefit for Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. diverted the funds though it was received for Sinapali W.C.S. for setting up Handloom Development Centre and Quality Dyeing Unit. Mr. Swain had shown undue official favour to Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. by abusing his official position being a public servant, whereby Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. got pecuniary benefit and Sinapali Weavers Co-operative society had been deprived off the benefits. 3. In the course of investigation, the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Berhampur treated the inquiry report as F.I.R., and directed for investigation of the case against Prakash Chandra Swain, Asst, Director of Textiles, Bhawanipatna. He further directed the Inspector (P.W.26) to investigate the case. It was discovered that ₹6,00,000/- CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 3 of 17 earmarked for establishing a Quality Dying Unit and Handloom Development Center for Sinapali W.C.S. was redirected by the Appellant, who held the position of Assistant Director of Textiles, Bhawanipatna, to Nehuru Nagar Weavers Co-operative Society under the hank yarn scheme. This unauthorized diversion prevented Sinapali Weavers Co-operative Society from receiving a subsidy of ₹14,500/-, which they would have been entitled to, had the funds been utilised for the intended purpose. The Appellant unlawfully diverted the funds without any approval from the appropriate authorities. The I.O. examined witnesses and seized several documents marked as Exts. 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13, along with documents marked as Exts. 1/2, 2/3, 3/3, 7/2, 10/3, 11/2, 12/2, and 13/2, all bearing his signature. Additionally, on 12th June 1998, two minutes books and the cash book of Nehuru Nagar Weavers Co-operative Society, along with documents marked as Exts. 41, 42, and 43/2, with Ext. 42/1 were seized. These documents were presented before the sanctioning authority, leading to the issuance of the sanction order by P.W.11 marked as Ext. 4. Subsequently, upon concluding the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the Appellant. 4. The case of the defense is one of complete denial and false implication. The Appellant has denied to have misutilised his official position in doing the alleged act and as such the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act are not attracted. 5. To bring home the charge, the Prosecution examined 26 witnesses in all. P.W.1 and 2 being the seizure witnesses, namely, Surendra Patnaik and Ashok Kumar Sahu; PW.3, Uma Shankar Barik; P.W.4, CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 4 of 17 Udhab Deep; P.W.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, and 20 being the secretaries of the primary centres of Nehuru Nagar W.C.S. namely Sripati Meher, Radhashyam Meher, Prahallad Meher, Kirtiram Meher, Bhaskar Meher, Abhaya Prasad Meher, Hare Krushna Meher, Arjuna Meher, Fakir Mohan Naik, Jakob Manda, and Durga Prasad Das respectively; P.W.11, Tara Shankar Chakraborty being the Dy. Secretary of G.A. Department who accorded the sanction for prosecution; P.W.14, Satyanarayana Meher being the Secretary of Nehuru Nagar W.C.S.; P.W.15, Purna Chandra Muduli; P.W.18, Satrughna Meher; P.W.19, Ram Chandra Sahu; P.W.21, Prafulla Gouda; P.W.22, Rameswara Meher being the Secretary of Sinapali W.C.S.; P.W.23, Basant Kumar Dash being the Inspector of Vigilance who arrested the Appellant; P.W.24, Sangram Kishore Mohanty; P.W.25, Debi Prasad Dash, and P.W.26, Raj Kishore Choudhury being the I.O. 6. The learned trial court having believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the corroborative circumstances paired with the legal principles concerned, found the prosecution to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and held the Appellant guilty and convicted him awarding the sentence as described above. 7. The learned counsel for the Appellant while assailing the impugned judgment argued that the impugned judgment against the present Appellant is based on mere surmises and conjectures, as there is no concrete evidence to prove the alleged connivance between the Appellant and the Central Bank Cooperative Societies. The Appellant had given instructions for deposit of the amount in the account of Sinapali W.C.S. and it was for the bank authorities to explain why the CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 5 of 17 amount was not deposited. He further argues that the bank officials/manger have not been examined though they were cited as chargesheet witnesses as it is essential to prove the involvement of the bank officials and the alleged connivance in order to establish the charges against the Appellant. Furthermore, the Appellant has not been given the opportunity to explain the discrepancy in the amount spent on raw materials, which is a significant aspect of the case. The fact that the draft in question was in favour of Sinapali W.C.S and could not have been encashed in the absence of any endorsement by Sinapali W.C.S is a crucial piece of evidence that has not been taken into account. Additionally, the evidence of P.W.22, the Secretary of Sinapali W.C.S, regarding the Joint Director, Textiles visiting their Society and taking away their resolution book, and not returning the same despite repeated requests, is an important aspect of the case which has not been taken into account. The fact that they had received a sum of 4,00,900/- from Nehuru Nagar Weavers Co-operative Society is equally substantial to read in the evidence which could have clarified the issue in question that has not been taken note of. 8. The learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rizvi, on the other hand while supporting the impugned judgment to be akin to the evidence led by prosecution, submitted that the Appellant during his tenure, engaged in a series of actions that clearly demonstrate a deliberate and calculated effort to divert the concerned funds for personal gain and to benefit other entities at the expense of the rightful beneficiaries. The Appellant in his capacity as a public servant entrusted with the responsibility of managing and disbursing public funds, blatantly disregarded the CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 6 of 17 directives of the Government and the Director of Textiles, Orissa. It is cogent from the evidence presented that he received a draft intended for the Sinapali W.C.S. with clear instructions on its utilisation for the establishment of a Handloom Development Centre and a Quality Dyeing Unit but instead of adhering to these directives, the defendant chose to divert the funds to the National Handloom Development Corporation, thereby depriving the Sinapali W.C.S. of its rightful entitlement. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the Appellant asserts that the Appellant's actions were not merely inadvertent or accidental but were, in fact, calculated and premeditated as his decision to deposit the draft in a bank without providing clear instructions on its utilisation, followed by the procurement of a bank draft in favour of another entity, clearly indicates a pattern of behaviour aimed at siphoning off the funds allocated for the Sinapali W.C.S. Moreover, the subsequent distribution of yarns to other societies under the guise of a subsidy scheme, intended for the benefit of the Sinapali W.C.S., further underscores the intention of the Appellant to abuse his official position. He further submits that the Appellant was in connivance with the Central Bank Cooperative Societies in the sundry account and the defence has failed to prove his innocence with respect to the withdrawal of ₹4,76,800 from ₹6,00,000 in the absence of the signature of the account holder of Sinapali W.C.S. Hence, the impugned judgment suffers from no infirmity and requires no interference. 9. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions, the relevant provisions with respect to the charges are required to be referred to – Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 7 of 17 13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.— (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,— (a) *** (b) *** (c) *** (d) If a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Explanation 1.—A person shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for. Explanation 2.—The expression ‘‘known sources of income’’ means income received from any lawful sources.] (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [four years] but which may extend to 3[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine. 10. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 outlines the offense of criminal misconduct by a public servant. The ingredients of this provision include: i) that he should have been a public servant at the time of occurence ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant; and iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.
Decision
In this result, the Appeal is allowed. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge. As a necessary corollary, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the Appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act of the P.C. Act are hereby set aside. (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 20-Apr-2024 13:55:21 CRA No. 226 of 2007 Page 17 of 17