Skip to content


Dologovinda Mohanty Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 225 of 1972
Judge
Reported inAIR1979SC1260; 48(1979)CLT445(SC); 1979CriLJ1076; (1979)4SCC557; 1979(11)LC343(SC)
ActsPrevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5(1), 5(2) and 342
AppellantDologovinda Mohanty
RespondentState of Orissa
Excerpt:
criminal - misappropriation of fund - sections 5 (1), 5 (2) and 342 of prevention of corruption act, 1947 - appellant was convicted under sections 5 (1) and 5 (2) - appellant contended that it was not case of misappropriation but of bona fide mistake in accounting - apex court observed that due to his domestic circumstances he was mentally disturbed - sum embezzled was only rs. 130 - court reduced sentence to period already served and reduced fine also. - .....and sentenced to four month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rs. 1,000/-, in default eight month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. we have heard learned counsel for the appellant who has argued that it was not a case of misappropriation but one of benafide mistake in accounting it appears that the appellant who was a district fishery officer, was not at all conversant with accounts and while writing the cash book and the consolidated form and other documents he may have committed mistakes, but in view of the findings of the courts below there can be no doubt that the charge of misappropriation as found against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. it, however, appears that the entire money which was said to have been embezzled by the appellant was recovered by the government by.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. In this appeal by special the appellant has been convicted under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to four month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default eight month's rigorous imprisonment.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant who has argued that it was not a case of misappropriation but one of benafide mistake in accounting It appears that the appellant who was a District Fishery Officer, was not at all conversant with accounts and while writing the cash book and the Consolidated Form and other documents he may have committed mistakes, but in view of the findings of the courts below there can be no doubt that the charge of misappropriation as found against him is proved beyond reasonable doubt. It, however, appears that the entire money which was said to have been embezzled by the appellant was recovered by the government by deducting the entire amount from the salary of the appellant. It also appears from the statement of the accused under Section 342 that in view of his domestic circumstances he was mentally disturbed. Having regard to these special circumstances and further having regard to the facts that the sum embezelled is only Rs. 138/- we feel that it would not be proper to send the appellant back to jail. The appellant has already undergone about a week's imprisonment. For these reasons, therefore, we reduce the sentence to the period already served and reduce the fine from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs. 500/- in default one month's rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine, if deposited already, Rs. 500/- may be refunded to the appellant. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //