RABINDRA KUMAR DEY versus STATE OF ORISSA

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 31-08-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,.,.,. -' 
439 
RABINDRA KUMAR DEY 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA 
August 31, 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI AND _S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.J 
Preve111io11 of Corruption A ct, 1947-Sec. 5 ( 1) (c) and 5(1 )(d) r /1v 
Sec. 
5(2)-Misappropriating Gort. Funds-Retaining Go1·t. 
Funds 
by 
a 
Gort . 
.serram-Ei•idnw2 Act. Sec. 154-When can a witness be declared hostile-Can 
-el'id~nce of a hostile witness be accepted-El'idencc A ct Sec. 
105-0nus of 
proring exceptions in l.P.C. 011 accused-Degree of 
proof-Criminal Trio/-
Effect of non exan1ination of n1aterial witness-Conviction on e\·id!!nce 
of 
a 
..solitary \Vitness_:_ivhether adven,19 infer2nce can be drawn against accused 
for 
1101 leading evidence-Onus of prosecutio11-Presu1nption of innocence. 
The appellant who was the Additional District Magistrate in overall charge 
-0f the Nizarat and the Land Acquisition sections of the Collectorate was charged 
for criminal misconduct under section 5 (2) read with section 5 ( 1) ( c) and S (1) 
(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 
The allegation again;,t lhe 
:appellant was that he withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 9-1-1965 on the gi'ound 
that he wanted to distribute the said amount amongst the villagers whose land 
was acquired as the compensation; that in fact the appellant never w:rnted to 
distribute the said amount and that he retained,the money with him for about 6 
months dishonestly and only after that the, money was ckposited in the Trcarnry. 
The defence of the appellant was that the Secretary of the Works Dcpartm:nt 
called a meeting in the Secretariat on 25-9-1964 and that the appelbnl was ex-
pressly di1:ccted to proceed to the spot and persuade the villagers to accept the 
compensation money; that it was pursuant to that man,hte that the appellant 
withdrew the money on 9-1-1965; that he could not go t<~ the village in question 
on that day because one of the officers who was to accompany him· was not 
:available; that he, therefore, again deposited the money ba<'.k with the Nazir and 
collected the money from him again on 20-1-1975; than he went there along with 
several officials; that the villagers, however, refused to accept the compemation. 
The appellant was, however, hopeful of getting the compensation increased and 
to persuade the villagers to accept the increased compensation. He, therefore, on 
his return handed over the money to the Nazir, however, asked him not to de-
posit the same in the Treasury so that cash would be readily available as soon 
as needed. 
Nazir was examined by the prosecution and he denied having received the 
money as suggested by the appellant. Secretary of the Works Department was 
not examined by the prosecution. The Land Acquisition Officer PW 8 deposed 
that the Secretary directed the appellant to take action for payment of the com-
pensation money to the villagers and that the appellant should personally per-
suade the villagers to accept the compensation. The said witness was, however, 
declared hostile on the ground that he did not state to the Police that when the 
appellant and the Executive Engineer visited the village they did not persuade 
the villagers to receive the compensation amount. PW 7 the Executive Engineer 
deposed that he accompanied the appellant to the village and that the appellant 
tried to persuade the villagers to receive the compensation bnt that they refused 
to accept the same. 
This witness was also declared hostile because of certain 
minor omissions in his statement before the Police. 
PW 6, one of the villagers 
:also deposed that the appellant persuaded them to give up possession but the 
villagers did not agree. This witness was also declared hostile because he omitted 
to state some facts before the Police. 
The Trial Court and the High Court ·relying on the evidence of Nazir and 
certain documents convicted the appellant under section 5 ( l ){ c) and 5 ( l ) ( d l 
read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 
12-l 104SCJ/76 
A 
B 
c ' 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave, 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. In a charge of misappropriation once the entrustment of money is; 
proved and although the onus to prove the entrustment is on the prosecutLon, 
if the explanation of the accused is found to be false he must be presumed 
ta> 
have retained the money with himself. 
[444 A-BJ 
Jaikris/madas Manohardas Desai and Aur. v. State of Bombay, 
[1960J 
3· 
S.C.R. 319, 324; followed. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.