Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 942 (ORI)

State of Odisha v. Karma Barua @ Oraon

2017-08-28

S.K.SAHOO

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard 2. The opposite party was the Inspector of Commercial Tax and he faced trial in the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur in G.R. Case No.73 of 1996(V)/T.R. No.75 of 2000 for offence punishable under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs.2,47,173.15 (rupees two lakhs forty seven thousand one hundred seventy three and fifteen paisa) to his known sources of income and thereby committed criminal misconduct. The learned Trial Court acquitted the opposite party vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.12.2015. 3. While challenging the impugned judgment, the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department pointed out that the assessment made by the learned Trial Court on the agricultural income is faulty and he has relied upon on the ground nos. U, V, W, X and Y taken in the leave petition. 4. On going through the impugned judgment, it appears that while assessing the income aspect, the learned Trial Court has considered the salary as well as agricultural income and came to hold that during the check period i.e. from 17.05.1983 to 19.12.1996, the total income of the accused comes to Rs.4,31,100.60 paisa and the total expenditure comes to Rs.2,26,146.88 paisa. So far as the assets are concerned, it was calculated by the learned Trial Court at Rs.1,87,825/-. Therefore, taking into account the income, expenditure and assets, the learned Trial Court has been pleased to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge of misconduct against the accused-opposite party under section 13(1)(e) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Law is well settled as held in case of Babu -Vrs.-State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 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 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. 6. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on going through the impugned judgment and finding of the learned Trial Court on agricultural income aspect, it appears that the learned Trial Court has taken into account the land records seized at the time of house search of the opposite party and which were produced by the opposite party on being examined as D.W.1, income certificate furnished by Tahasildar, Balisankara, Sundargarh and circular issued by Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. After going through grounds taken by the learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department in ground nos. U, V, W, X and Y of the leave petition, I am of the view that there is no perversity or illegality in the finding on the agricultural income aspect and even otherwise it cannot be said that the findings reached are unreasonable and therefore, I am not inclined to grant leave to prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 7. Accordingly, the CRLLP stands dismissed.