It was also the definite case of the appellant that in the meeting held in the secretariat on September 25, 1964, the appellant was expressly directed to proceed to the spot and persuade the villagers to accept the companypensation money and it was in companysequence of this mandate from the Secretary of works Department that the A.D.M. proceeded to the village Balichandrapur and made all possible efforts to persuade the tenants to accept companypensation even by holding out promises to them.
11,650 61 but numberdisbursement companyld be made between July 24, 1964 and January 20, 1965 as the villagers refused to accept the payments and wanted the Land Acquisition proceedings to be withdrawn.
10,000/ to the Nazir on his return from the village but directed him number to deposit the same in the treasury or to make any entry in the Cash Register so that if the villagers came to Cuttuck to demand the money they companyld be given the same immediately without any formality of a fresh withdrawal.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 11 5 71 of the Orissa High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
150/ per gunth he was willing to pay them cash at the spot.
It appears that a sum of Rs.
Gobind Das, Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare, ,A. K. Mathur, A. Sharma and M.S. Bhandare, for the Appellant.
The appellant thereafter was challaned under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and ultimately companyvicted as indicated above.
The accused said that they would be paid Rs.
These omissions companysisted of the facts that there is numbermention about the previous visit to Balichandrapur or that he had stated that while he was returning to Cuttuck he remained sitting in the car and the accused asked P.W. 3 to follow him with the bag and things like that.
C. Agarwal and G.S. Chatterjee, for the Respondent.
There is also numberhing to show that he was in any way interested in the accused or was his great friend and supporter.
The appellant further averred that because of some personal jealousies, a false companyplaint was made against him which necessitated an inquiry.
W. 6 Udaynath Parida who is a villager of Balichandra pur has categorically supported the statement of P.W. 7 that the accused had agreed to pay companypensation at the rate of Rs.
In this companynection the witness deposed as follows The accused thereafter enquired from the parties as to on what terms they were willing to give up possession of their lands which had already been selected for acquisition.
The prosecution case further is that the appellant as Addi tional District Magistrate attended a meeting at the Secre tariat in the office of the Secretary of Works Department at Bhubaneswar on September 25, 1964 where certain decisions were taken.
It has, however, number been elicited from him in cross examination number has it been argued that the witness had told the Investigating Officer that the accused had number met or had number talked at all with the ten ants in his presence in order to persuade them to accept the companypensation.
The evidence of P.W. 7 is fully company roborated by Ext.
200/ per gunth and companyld number pay them off hand, but if the parties wanted payment at the rate of Rs.
The parties did number agree.
On receiving certain applications, the Vigi lance Organisation of the State of Orissa instituted an inquiry against the appellant and after companypleting the same lodged a formal F.I.R. on May 13, 1966.
193 of 1971.
The evidence of the villager P.W. 6 Udayanath Parida who is an independent wit ness also proves that the accused had taken the money to the village and made efforts to persuade the tenants to accept the money.
200/ per gunth.
B a letter written by P.W. 7 Executive Engineer dated July 6, 1966, a companyy of which was sent to the appellant and other officers.
In these circumstances, he had numberreason to make a false statement that the accused had visited the village and persuaded the tenants to accept the companypensation.
The villagers wanted some other alignment to be made or the companypensatioion to be increased, and the appellant persuaded them to accept part payment and assured them that he will try to get the amount increased.
This was an official letter and we do number see any reason why such a high officer as the Executive Engineer should have gone to the extent of fabricating an unnecessary letter to help the appellant against whom an inquiry had been ordered.
Thereafter an application for leave to appeal to this Court was made before the High Court, which having been refused the appellant obtained special leave from this Court, and hence this appeal.
8 of the even date, viz.
Even if this letter be excluded from companysideration, the other evidence both oral and docu mentary clearly show that the appellant had visited the spot in village Balichandrapur on January 20, 1965 with a view to distribute the companypensation money and did make an attempt to persuade the tenants to accept the companypensation but they refused to accept the same unless the companypensation was raised to Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The parties stated that if they were paid companypen sation at the rate of Rs.
In this letter which is addressed to the Assistant Engineer, Road, Office of the Chief Engineer, Bhubaneswar, P.W. 7 as Executive Engineer had clearly mentioned that he along with the appellant had visited the site at Balichandrapur and persuaded the tenants to accept the money by enhancing the amount to Rs.
The appellant preferred an .appeal to the High Court of Orissa against the order of the Special Judge which was, however, dismissed, and the companyvic tions and sentences imposed on him were companyfirmed by the High Court.
He has also been companyvicted under s. 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act but numberseparate sentence has been passed thereunder.
The accused stated that he did number have sanction for payment of Rs.
Unfortunately, however, the villagers refused to accept the companypensation and the party had to companye back to Cuttack disappointed.
200/ per gunth, they would part with their lands.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered FAZAL ALl, J. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has been companyvicted for criminal misconduct under s.5 2 read with S.5 1 c of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
14/70.
On this point also oral and documen tary evidence led by the prosecution clearly proves the version given by the appellant.
Sayad Allamuddian Ahmed P.W. 8 was the District Land Acquisition Officer and one A. Ballav Pradhan W. 9 was the Nizarat Officer, whereas Prahalad Mahapatra W. 1 was the Nazir and Rajkishore Das P.W. 2 was the Assistant Nazir under P.W. 1 P.W. 3 Bhakta Charan Mohanti was the Land Acquisition Inspector.
A huge companypensation amount to be given to land owners had been deposited in the treasury for payment to them.
To begin with, P.W. 7 who was an Executive Engineer at the relevant.
It appears that a number of lands had been acquired by the Government for certain public projects in various villages particularly Mauza Balichandrapur with which we are companycerned in the present case.
Put briefly, the prosecution case was as follows The appellant was the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack from September 1964 to June 1966 and in that capaci ty he was in overall charge of the Nizarat and land acquisition sections of the Collectorate.
This witness was also declared hostile and that too number because he had number made the statement referred to above before the police, but because of certain minor omissions in his statement before the police.
As against this the prosecution relied merely on the fact that in the tour diary of the accused Ext.
200/ per gunth to which the tenants.
when that rate would be sanctioned and he was going to write about it.
In fact the evidence of these two witnesses on this point follows as a logical companyollary from the decision taken at the meeting held by the Secretary, Works Depart ment, where the appellant was directed to visit the spot and persuade the tenants to accept companypensation.
January 20, 1965, as also in the office report there is numberclear mention that the appellant tried to persuade the tenants to accept the money or that he had taken the money with him to the spot.
200/ .
These documents undoubtedly companytain the statement regarding the visit of the appellant to the spot and some other matters.
31,793.85 had been disbursed by July 24, 1964 leaving a balance of Rs.
