Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 93 (ORI)

Laxman Panda v. Republic of India

2006-02-03

body2006
JUDGMENT SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. — This appeal at the instance of the appellant Laxman Panda is directed against the judgment dated 17.2.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.R. Case No. 63 of 1988 convicting the appellant under Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and sentencing him on such conviction under Section 5(2) of the said Act to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default to undergo S.I. for two months. The impugned judgment was passed in connec¬tion with T.R. Case No. 13 of 1980. 2. None is available for the appellant. On previous occa¬sion also none was available for the appellant. 3. This appeal is pending in this Court since 1988. Mean¬while, 18 years have elapsed. After passage of such a long time, this case cannot be adjourned only on the ground that the learned counsel for appellant is not available. 4. I have heard Mr. Padhi, learned Special Public Prosecu¬tor for the C.B.I. He has taken me through the evidence on record. Appellant was convicted as he was found to have possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. At the relevant point of time, he was serving in the Rourkela Steel Plant as Grade-II Operator since 1.2.1961. On 1.2.1961 he was getting his monthly emoluments of Rs.115/-. It was again enhanced to Rs.370/- per month with effect from 1.4.1974. The monthly salary of the appellant was further revised to Rs. 570/- with effect from 30.10.1978. He was found to have possessed properties worth Rs.66,275/- as per prosecution. I have gone through the entire evidence on record. I have also taken into consideration the explanation furnished by the appellant for possessing such properties worth Rs. 66,275/- during the check period from 1.1.1967 to 30.10.1978 and I find that the explanation is not at all acceptable. I am not inclined to go into further details. If the salary income received by the appellant during the aforesaid period since his initial appointment as Grade-II Operator of Rourkela Steel Plant on 1.2.1961 is taken into consideration, it can be safely concluded that it was not possible for him to accumulate so much of properties worth Rs. 66,275/-. 5. I am not inclined to go into further details. If the salary income received by the appellant during the aforesaid period since his initial appointment as Grade-II Operator of Rourkela Steel Plant on 1.2.1961 is taken into consideration, it can be safely concluded that it was not possible for him to accumulate so much of properties worth Rs. 66,275/-. 5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I have no option to hold that the learned trial Court committed any mistake in hold¬ing the appellant guilty under Section 5(1)(e) of the Act and punishing him under Sub-section (2) of Section 5 as already stated. However, since the impugned judgment was passed, almost 18 years have elapsed. I am of the opinion that it will be trav¬esty of justice to maintain the sentence in its entirety at this belated stage. However, it needs to be mentioned here that Sub-section (2) of Section 5 specifically provides that the imprison¬ment to which a person guilty for the aforesaid offence shall not be less than one year, but it may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. However, proviso thereto further provides that the Court may, for any special reason recorded in writing, impose a sentence of imprisonment for less than one year. 6. In my view, it will be sheer injustice to maintain the sentence of imprisonment after passage of so many years. I, therefore, alter the sentence to one till rising of the trial Court and sentence to fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of one month. The appellant shall surrender before the trial Court within a period of one month from today and shall serve out the sentence of imprisonment till rising of the trial Court and shall also deposit the fine as directed above. I, further direct the office to transmit the trial Court record along with a copy of the judg¬ment forthwith to the trial Court. If the appellant does not surrender within the aforesaid time, learned trial Court shall take all necessary steps for execution of the sentence as modi¬fied above. 7. The appeal is thus dismissed subject to modification of the sentence as aforesaid. Appeal dismissed.